The big disconnect. Or a follow up from Aikido vs MMA.

[Gerry Seymour]

only if the aikido move doesn't result in you being knifed in the throat, other wise staying very still and handing over you wallet if asked sounds a much better strategy.

Agreed. It's when the knife is actually being used (not just displayed) that the choice in Hoshin's post occurs, if I read it correctly.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no compliance is better than using aikido and being stabbed in the throat. Bjj is better than compliance, as long as you don't get stabbed

So, compliance is better than being stabbed, unless you're using BJJ, in which case action is better than compliance, unless you get stabbed?

 

[drop bear]

many people seem to insist that , it only works, if it works in an MMA resistance type setting. for some things yes and other things no.
people get confused on the construct of "what works" if i am attacked by a guy wielding a knife in a convenience store, am i better off doing an aikido move where i slip the strike/ dodge it and run, or am i better off getting inside the attackers arc of motion and go for a double leg takedown and try for an arm bar? i would go for the run every time without a doubt. but you can prove out the idea that the double leg into an arm bar will out preform the kokyu nage in a one on one competitive resistant roll session. context is everything.

Wait a second putting the situation in a MMA resistance setting would still apply. You throw some mma gloves on get a rubber or blunt knife and then test the concept. Test running away. Test wrist locks, test the double leg.

Same as MMA. resistance within as open a rule set as you can apply.

 

[DaveB]

Isn't that how all knife defences are trained once the basics of controlling and disarming are taught?

 

[hoshin1600]

Wait a second putting the situation in a MMA resistance setting would still apply. You throw some mma gloves on get a rubber or blunt knife and then test the concept. Test running away. Test wrist locks, test the double leg.

Same as MMA. resistance within as open a rule set as you can apply.

]

Let me re frame the issue.
A gun is a tool.
A knife is a tool. So is BJJ so is Aikido. You don't test a screwdriver by smashing it with a hammer an then say "see the screwdriver didn't hold up to the hammer, the hammer is the best"
Because the screwdriver is bent and broken. You can't test aikido with bjj. The equivalent would be to pull a firearm on you from across the room and say...ok do some of that ju jitsy stuff and see if you can stop this bullet.
The way I see it is aikido and bjj are different tools. They apply to different aspect of the defensive spectrum in a violent encounter. Aikido is good for the initial contact (it's a facilitator for what ever is next) bjj is good for the middle (establishing dominance and control ) then a little ground and pound is great for the finnish. I used the example of use the aiki move as a facilitator then run but it could also be to gain distance to draw my firearm. Aikido is best used for a different purpose then bjj. That's why you can't just pit one again the other on a mat and see which one is better. They really have different functions.

 

[jobo]

So, compliance is better than being stabbed, unless you're using BJJ, in which case action is better than compliance, unless you get stabbed?

more or less

 

[jobo]

Agreed. It's when the knife is actually being used (not just displayed) that the choice in Hoshin's post occurs, if I read it correctly.

he came up with a very specific case of being attacked by a knife maniac in a store. Whilst I'm not saying that has never happened, its so rare as to be in the don't need to worry class,

in the rare event i was in a store and that happened o would throw tins of beans at him, unless i was in the hardware section , where i would grab a hammer or a Spade, perhaps a hoe

 

[drop bear]

Let me re frame the issue.
A gun is a tool.
A knife is a tool. So is BJJ so is Aikido. You don't test a screwdriver by smashing it with a hammer an then say "see the screwdriver didn't hold up to the hammer, the hammer is the best"
Because the screwdriver is bent and broken. You can't test aikido with bjj. The equivalent would be to pull a firearm on you from across the room and say...ok do some of that ju jitsy stuff and see if you can stop this bullet.
The way I see it is aikido and bjj are different tools. They apply to different aspect of the defensive spectrum in a violent encounter. Aikido is good for the initial contact (it's a facilitator for what ever is next) bjj is good for the middle (establishing dominance and control ) then a little ground and pound is great for the finnish. I used the example of use the aiki move as a facilitator then run but it could also be to gain distance to draw my firearm. Aikido is best used for a different purpose then bjj. That's why you can't just pit one again the other on a mat and see which one is better. They really have different functions.

Of course you can pit one against the other on the mat and see which one is better.

Whole point of the thread.

A gun from across the room is better than BJJ.

 

[DaveB]

What this thread shows best is that some people will only ever see their own point of view.

 

[drop bear]

What this thread shows best is that some people will only ever see their own point of view.

This thread shows people can see more.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Of course you can pit one against the other on the mat and see which one is better.

Well, no, all that will show you is which person is better. On that particular day.

A gun from across the room is better than BJJ.

Chic-Chic-POW beats pretty much all unarmed systems.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Isn't that how all knife defences are trained once the basics of controlling and disarming are taught?

I wish. Lots of schools in lots of arts where knife defenses are taught but never trained live.

 

[punisher73]

Too long for our current data availability - I'll try to remember to watch when I'm near a WiFi source. I'm interested in seeing if this mirrors one of the issues I've posted about in the past, where sparring against your own art takes away techniques that are more available against folks who don't know what you are going to do.

I believe he does touch on that a little bit. He goes more over the mindset of a sparring match versus an angry bloke who is egging on a fight. He also makes the point that you are unlikely to face another trained martial artist in a "streetfight" because usually they aren't the ones looking for one. He talks about how when you spar there is a certain perspective that you are going to actively resist whatever the other person does from the onset in both attack and defense. In an altercation, the attacker doesn't necessarily do that and is more open to your counter.

It was an interesting perspective that I hadn't heard before concerning the "ring vs. the street" argument that usually occurs.

 

[jobo]

Of course you can pit one against the other on the mat and see which one is better.

Whole point of the thread.

A gun from across the room is better than BJJ.

i thought the purpose of the op was to improve aikido, not to make it better than bjj at ring fighting ? Bjj has a tenancy towards beating any other art, all things being equal. It's unfair to single out aikido, when the same deficiencies would apply to karate, boxing, judo etc

 

[hoshin1600]

Of course you can pit one against the other on the mat and see which one is better.

yes you can, but you shouldnt and that was my point with the gun. you can pit them together but the resulting data gained is non consequential. its a bogus result. the gun will kill the bjj guy every single time, does that mean that bjj is useless BS? tests like that do not mean anything because while aikido and bjj seem similar they are non compatible concepts like bjj and a gun. nor can you qualify the successfullness of running away against bjj. these are all different contexts within a violent encounter. each tool has its purpose. again you can judge a screwdriver by how well its hammers a nail but what good is that? by putting Bjj and Aikido on the mat the only thing you are testing is ones ability to dominate and control.

Well, no, all that will show you is which person is better. On that particular day.

and this is not really true in this instance. bjj will win every time, aikido will lose every time almost without exception. the usual explanation of "well its not a real fight...but if it was, my art would win......" that is a cop out. when people say that its because they do not really understand why aikido is not working for them. they do not understand the underling factors at work.
i kinda see aikido as an exception to most arts. it has by design no dominance and control game. thus it will always lose to an art that specializes in that. what Roy Dean seems to be suggesting is that it should adapt to have it. i say it shouldnt. it should be used as a different kind of tool.

 

[jobo]

Let me re frame the issue.
A gun is a tool.
A knife is a tool. So is BJJ so is Aikido. You don't test a screwdriver by smashing it with a hammer an then say "see the screwdriver didn't hold up to the hammer, the hammer is the best"
Because the screwdriver is bent and broken. You can't test aikido with bjj. The equivalent would be to pull a firearm on you from across the room and say...ok do some of that ju jitsy stuff and see if you can stop this bullet.
The way I see it is aikido and bjj are different tools. They apply to different aspect of the defensive spectrum in a violent encounter. Aikido is good for the initial contact (it's a facilitator for what ever is next) bjj is good for the middle (establishing dominance and control ) then a little ground and pound is great for the finnish. I used the example of use the aiki move as a facilitator then run but it could also be to gain distance to draw my firearm. Aikido is best used for a different purpose then bjj. That's why you can't just pit one again the other on a mat and see which one is better. They really have different functions.

I'm not sure that,screw driver hammer comparison holds up, you can very much judge the quality of a,screw driver by if it bends when you hit it with hammer, a good quality screwdriver should be impervious to a few hammer blows, admittedly you are using it to compare screw driver not hammer against driver, but still!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Wait a second putting the situation in a MMA resistance setting would still apply. You throw some mma gloves on get a rubber or blunt knife and then test the concept. Test running away. Test wrist locks, test the double leg.

Same as MMA. resistance within as open a rule set as you can apply.

Except that you, in the past, have argued that there's no value in adding situational SD training to MMA. You're now saying almost exactly something I've said before, and something you've argued (in complete ignorance) that I don't do.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

he came up with a very specific case of being attacked by a knife maniac in a store. Whilst I'm not saying that has never happened, its so rare as to be in the don't need to worry class,

in the rare event i was in a store and that happened o would throw tins of beans at him, unless i was in the hardware section , where i would grab a hammer or a Spade, perhaps a hoe

But that was the scenario he set forth, and you sidestepped it saying a different response to a different scenario is better. I don't disagree with your point, but it doesn't apply to the situation he was applying.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I believe he does touch on that a little bit. He goes more over the mindset of a sparring match versus an angry bloke who is egging on a fight. He also makes the point that you are unlikely to face another trained martial artist in a "streetfight" because usually they aren't the ones looking for one. He talks about how when you spar there is a certain perspective that you are going to actively resist whatever the other person does from the onset in both attack and defense. In an altercation, the attacker doesn't necessarily do that and is more open to your counter.

It was an interesting perspective that I hadn't heard before concerning the "ring vs. the street" argument that usually occurs.

I agree with most of that, except - and this is a point Drop Bear makes better than me - someone doesn't have to be a skilled, trained martial artist to come with controlled attacks. Of course, there's a difference between facing someone who is a skilled and controlled fighter, and someone who actually knows what you do and how to counter it.

The rest is good points. When I spar, I can stop a lot of techniques that absolutely work, because I can recognize them coming and know exactly how to counter them. You see this a lot in how Judo has progressed, and the rules they've had to put in place in competitions to avoid stalemating. I seem to remember there being some rules to that end in BJJ competitions, but I know far less about those. If someone is angry, they (according to video evidence, my own experience, and most of the discussions I've had with folks who deal with angry people getting physical) tend to focus mostly on attack, often (though not always) even to the point of exposing themselves to techniques and counters that wouldn't show up sparring even with an untrained person.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

yes you can, but you shouldnt and that was my point with the gun. you can pit them together but the resulting data gained is non consequential. its a bogus result. the gun will kill the bjj guy every single time, does that mean that bjj is useless BS? tests like that do not mean anything because while aikido and bjj seem similar they are non compatible concepts like bjj and a gun. nor can you qualify the successfullness of running away against bjj. these are all different contexts within a violent encounter. each tool has its purpose. again you can judge a screwdriver by how well its hammers a nail but what good is that? by putting Bjj and Aikido on the mat the only thing you are testing is ones ability to dominate and control.

and this is not really true in this instance. bjj will win every time, aikido will lose every time almost without exception. the usual explanation of "well its not a real fight...but if it was, my art would win......" that is a cop out. when people say that its because they do not really understand why aikido is not working for them. they do not understand the underling factors at work.
i kinda see aikido as an exception to most arts. it has by design no dominance and control game. thus it will always lose to an art that specializes in that. what Roy Dean seems to be suggesting is that it should adapt to have it. i say it shouldnt. it should be used as a different kind of tool.

I go back and forth on that last point. If we view Aikido as an add-on (what I think it originally was), then I agree with you. If we view it as a stand-alone art (the way it is most commonly taught), I think it needs a dominance and control game of some sort. It needs a vehicle to make the aiki more available and useful, and to fill the areas where it isn't.