Why do TMAs have more difficulty in the ring/octagon?

[Steve]

What are you on about? Where did you get that stupid idea from? Certainly nothing I have posted.
Finger locks would be less than half of one percent of Aikido. If grappling was removed from BJJ there wouldn't be much left.

Judoka sometimes sign up for BJJ competitions, both gi and no-gi. I've even seen catch wrestlers put a gi on and try gi BJJ.

Jiu Jitiero sometimes sign up for judo competitions. Catch wrestlers, Jiu Jitiero and judoka compete in no-gi submission wrestling tournaments. Sambo practitioners will join in sometimes, as well.

All of the above move into and out of different rule sets. And they are at no point trying to injure the other person, but they are trying to hurt them.

I understand that the OP references MMA. But, we've gone now down a slight tangent where we have a style which purports to avoid testing because it's against the philosophy of the art. Doesn't that just feel odd to everyone?

As I said before, it's just human nature, and while I could buy that the majority of aikidoka aren't interested in competition, it is unlikely to the point of being impossible that there are no aikidoka interested in competition or testing their art. I completely understand and respect that MMA is its own animal. But there are many venues where grappling skills can be tested and refined.

 

[Steve]

You still haven't answered my question. If you have spent a great deal of time in the pursuit and mastery of peace, harmony, blending, and mastering an art that at it's fundamental core teaches you to not harm your opponent......why would you...after doing that, pursue a competition that encompasses the exact opposite.

Think about that. When you can understand that......you will understand why you don't see competent aikidoka in MMA.

I think that this statement perfectly reinforces something I said earlier. What's the difference between pee wee football and tiny tigers TKD? Answer is that in pee wee football, coaches teach kids to play football. In tiny Tigers TKD, coaches teach kids "respect." If you read that, and nod your head thinking, "Yeah. Exactly. That's what's great about TKD," there's the problem.

I think Segal is too much of a dick to use as any kind of example of any damn thing.

I think the persona of an Aikidoka is different from that of an MMA fighter, as it should be. Just like you probably won't see a Buddhist getting in a food fight. Not that it won't ever happen, it's just not the right fit. And I know a whole lot of young guy fighters who always say they want to go into MMA, but they never do. I think it takes the right fit and the right kind of training - which is MMA training.

Buka, I agree regarding Segal!

What concerns me is that there is a fine line between non-violence pursued in strength, and non-violence used as a shield to hide cowardice and fear. I am sure that there are many competent aikidoka, but based upon the things being said, I'm also sure that there are many people who are deluding themselves, training out of fear and avoiding testing their skills out of cowardice. And the philosophy of the system is enabling this and encouraging them to move through the ranks.

Without the capacity for violence, non-violence is not a choice. It is an act of cowardice. Mahatma Gandhi was very vocal in denouncing cowardice hiding behind a shield of non-violence.

In my 27 years of Rhee TKD I have known only 2 students who have left because they wanted to compete. The law of averages doesn't support that either but that is the reality. It is not hard for me to see why Aikido practitioners might not be interested either.

Why would they have to leave to compete? I don't understand.

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

Kman, you've got some non sequitors going on. I think to be more clear, we need to distinguish between pain and injury. From what I've seen, aikido training involves a certain amount of pain. Pain is also a part of many BJJ competitions. But while injuries can occur in any competition, they are relatively rare.

The second non sequitor is to conclude that no aikidoka is interested in competition because there are no aikidoka competing.

Some might argue that 'the law of averages' is a non sequitur.

From wiki: "Typical applications of the law also generally assume no bias in the underlying probability distribution, which is frequently at odds with the empirical evidence".

 

[Hanzou]

Some might argue that 'the law of averages' is a non sequitur.

From wiki: "Typical applications of the law also generally assume no bias in the underlying probability distribution, which is frequently at odds with the empirical evidence".

The other side of the argument would be why aren't there any MMA fighters or gyms incorporating Aikido into their curriculum?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qE0OZm0HXRo

Throwing punchers on their heads would be a devastating skill in the Octagon.

 

[drop bear]

I think that this statement perfectly reinforces something I said earlier. What's the difference between pee wee football and tiny tigers TKD? Answer is that in pee wee football, coaches teach kids to play football. In tiny Tigers TKD, coaches teach kids "respect." If you read that, and nod your head thinking, "Yeah. Exactly. That's what's great about TKD," there's the problem.

Buka, I agree regarding Segal!

What concerns me is that there is a fine line between non-violence pursued in strength, and non-violence used as a shield to hide cowardice and fear. I am sure that there are many competent aikidoka, but based upon the things being said, I'm also sure that there are many people who are deluding themselves, training out of fear and avoiding testing their skills out of cowardice. And the philosophy of the system is enabling this and encouraging them to move through the ranks.

Without the capacity for violence, non-violence is not a choice. It is an act of cowardice. Mahatma Gandhi was very vocal in denouncing cowardice hiding behind a shield of non-violence.

Why would they have to leave to compete? I don't understand.

I was having a look at tkd and I think it is separated into traditional and competitive. So it is a bit different to say a karate that can be both at the same time.
ABOUT

 

[drop bear]

And I would just like to point out that I never said wrist locks were small joint manipulation and I never claimed they were outside MMA rules. As I have already posted what I said three times I am assuming you are just trying to annoy as I don't believe you are stupid. As to what you have posted here, it is mostly what I said, especially the last sentence.

i pointed out nine areas where normal Aikido practice falls foul of MMA rules. You made one up that I didn't list and, despite my clarification, you keep posting your words as mine.

So as a percentage of your total system what would the illegal moves be?

Personally I don't think it makes that much difference until you compare very different competitions. And I don't think is makes much difference if you have abbreviated your system. So say a kick boxer would have an easier time boxing than a boxer transitioning to kick boxing.

So it is not the skills you have but cannot use that gets you. It is the skills you don't have.

 

[Flying Crane]

I do believe that the test for the one inch punch was that a Ninja could knock someone out with it.

please PLEASE PLEASE!!! tell me you said this as a joke.

 

[Buka]

Without the capacity for violence, non-violence is not a choice. It is an act of cowardice. Mahatma Gandhi was very vocal in denouncing cowardice hiding behind a shield of non-violence.

That there was beautiful.

 

[Flying Crane]

What concerns me is that there is a fine line between non-violence pursued in strength, and non-violence used as a shield to hide cowardice and fear. I am sure that there are many competent aikidoka, but based upon the things being said, I'm also sure that there are many people who are deluding themselves, training out of fear and avoiding testing their skills out of cowardice. And the philosophy of the system is enabling this and encouraging them to move through the ranks.

Without the capacity for violence, non-violence is not a choice. It is an act of cowardice. Mahatma Gandhi was very vocal in denouncing cowardice hiding behind a shield of non-violence.

So I've gotta ask: how do you know which it is, in other people? and I don't mean the generic "you", I mean, "you, Steve". How do you know what it is, in other people? serious question.

What you've said is a fine statement to make, but please tell me how it is that you know?

 

[Steve]

So I've gotta ask: how do you know which it is, in other people? and I don't mean the generic "you", I mean, "you, Steve". How do you know what it is, in other people? serious question.

What you've said is a fine statement to make, but please tell me how it is that you know?

Hold on, FC. I never said that I could, at least, not unless I witness an act of cowardice.

Gandhi spoke often of cowardice, because he knew that in a campaign of non-violence, there was no room for cowards. He spoke of it often, because non-violence is an attractive facade behind which cowards can hide. For exactly the same reasons, people who train in a style such as Aikido should be vigilant. "We don't want to hurt anyone," can very easily become, "I'm worried that what I've learned doesn't work, and I'm afraid to find out."

My concern, as I've said many times now, is that without adequate preparation, the point of "finding out" is in a moment where the stakes are too high. "Oh no! I'm being mugged, and I can't apply the skills I've been taught!"

Gandhi said,

"I want both the Hindus and Mussalmans to cultivate the cool courage to die without killing. But if one has not that courage, I want him to cultivate the art of killing and being killed rather than, in a cowardly manner, flee from danger. For the latter, in spite of his flight, does commit mental himsa. He flees because he has not the courage to be killed in the act of killing. "

 

[Hanzou]

Has anyone ever stopped to consider that some instructors may purposely discourage or prevent their students from competing because it would expose their training method as ineffective?

This includes instructors who created martial systems and are long dead.

 

[K-man]

Kman, you've got some non sequitors going on. I think to be more clear, we need to distinguish between pain and injury. From what I've seen, aikido training involves a certain amount of pain. Pain is also a part of many BJJ competitions. But while injuries can occur in any competition, they are relatively rare.

The second non sequitor is to conclude that no aikidoka is interested in competition because there are no aikidoka competing.

I think this post is a perfect example of a non sequitur. I haven't been talking about either. But seeing you make the point, yes, pain is probably the common factor in this discussion. Compliance rather than destruction is the objective in Aikido which is the opposite in philosophy to MMA. As to injury? I would suggest that at the elite level of every contact sport there is a very high chance of injury. Bas Rutten's arm is a prime example. Muhammad Ali's brain damage is indicative of what I am sure we will see much more of down the track in MMA fighters. One of our top football teams here was virtually non-competitive bt the end of the season with more than half their training list injured. So your statement that injuries are rare is false. In the relatively few tournaments I competed in I had broken bones three times. You don't feel it at the time but you sure pay for it later.

Your second example is non-sensible, not non sequitur. If Aikidoka as a cohort were interested in competing surely you would see them all lining up to try their skills. The fact that they are not would seem a pretty fair indication that MMA fighting was not high on their agenda.

Judoka sometimes sign up for BJJ competitions, both gi and no-gi. I've even seen catch wrestlers put a gi on and try gi BJJ.

Jiu Jitiero sometimes sign up for judo competitions. Catch wrestlers, Jiu Jitiero and judoka compete in no-gi submission wrestling tournaments. Sambo practitioners will join in sometimes, as well.

All of the above move into and out of different rule sets. And they are at no point trying to injure the other person, but they are trying to hurt them.

Why would that be a surprise? They all practise the same skill set.

I understand that the OP references MMA. But, we've gone now down a slight tangent where we have a style which purports to avoid testing because it's against the philosophy of the art. Doesn't that just feel odd to everyone?

It's not odd. It's just another example of style bashing that has been allowed to continue way too long.

As I said before, it's just human nature, and while I could buy that the majority of aikidoka aren't interested in competition, it is unlikely to the point of being impossible that there are no aikidoka interested in competition or testing their art. I completely understand and respect that MMA is its own animal. But there are many venues where grappling skills can be tested and refined.

Why when your art does fight on the floor would you want to test your grappling skills? I don't train any of my martial arts to get into a fight, on the ground or otherwise. I train them for different reasons. I don't train BJJ, although I would actually like to, for a number of factors. Firstly I haven't time, secondly I am too old to do it justice and despite your claim about no injuries perhaps you could tell my mates with their shoulder reconstructions that injuries are rare.

I think that this statement perfectly reinforces something I said earlier. What's the difference between pee wee football and tiny tigers TKD? Answer is that in pee wee football, coaches teach kids to play football. In tiny Tigers TKD, coaches teach kids "respect." If you read that, and nod your head thinking, "Yeah. Exactly. That's what's great about TKD," there's the problem.

And I would say that this is style bashing as well. The implication is that certain styles are nothing to do with fighting. There are philosophies involved in all levels and styles of training. In junior football here, that is Australian Rules, they are talking about not allowing tackling in the younger age levels. I don't necessarily agree but I at least can understand the reasoning.

What concerns me is that there is a fine line between non-violence pursued in strength, and non-violence used as a shield to hide cowardice and fear. I am sure that there are many competent aikidoka, but based upon the things being said, I'm also sure that there are many people who are deluding themselves, training out of fear and avoiding testing their skills out of cowardice. And the philosophy of the system is enabling this and encouraging them to move through the ranks.

And again, I would call this unashamed style bashing. Calling someone a coward because they don't want to fight is a form of bullying that takes me back to childhood. I know a number of people who have given up karate to train aikido because they feel it is more effective. I have no doubt that highly trained Aikidoka have the necessary skills to defend themselves. It just takes longer to develop those skills than in certain other martial arts.

Without the capacity for violence, non-violence is not a choice. It is an act of cowardice. Mahatma Gandhi was very vocal in denouncing cowardice hiding behind a shield of non-violence.

Why would they have to leave to compete? I don't understand.

So what exactly are you saying about Aikido with all this talk about cowardice?

 

[Tames D]

Has anyone ever stopped to consider that some instructors may purposely discourage or prevent their students from competing because it would expose their training method as ineffective?

This includes instructors who created martial systems and are long dead.

Absolutely. Without a doubt.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Without the capacity for violence, non-violence is not a choice. It is an act of cowardice. Mahatma Gandhi was very vocal in denouncing cowardice hiding behind a shield of non-violence. .

Agree! There is a difference between:

- to have the ability to do it, but don't want to do it, and
- don't have the ability to do it, but want to do it.

 

[K-man]

I'm sure he is talking about this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HB01hhonf8Q
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Qz99LrUAM

i.e. Catching someone's arm while their punching, gripping their wrist and putting them in a lock.

All of which is perfectly legal in MMA, and if someone could pull it off, they'd be elite level fairly easily.

Not all MMA matches are televised. In order to even get to the level of being on t.v. You have to fight in the lower leagues. UFC and similar venues are considered elite level. Only the too fighters get to fight on that level. The reality is that fighters using unorthodox methods like Aikido just don't make the cut for whatever reason.

So when you guys are teaching a new person to MMA submissions as in locks you put them straight into the ring. Even the title says basic. Because you have no practical experience outside of MMA you have no idea of the training methods of other styles.

Well everyone doesn't train for the same reasons.

Hooray! At last you got the message!

Hell, Steven Segal is a scumbag, and he's supposedly a highly competent Aikidoka. This despite him bullying people and allegedly raping his wife. If a guy like that can reach high levels in Aikido, a person wanting to win a trophy or belt should also be able to do so.

What has this to do with the OP. I have no idea as to the character of Segal but he is a competent martial artist. I'm sure there are examples of other fighters who might fall into the same classification. This type of character assassination would be in keeping with some of the other MA sites but it's sad to see it appearing on MT.

The other side of the argument would be why aren't there any MMA fighters or gyms incorporating Aikido into their curriculum?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qE0OZm0HXRo

Throwing punchers on their heads would be a devastating skill in the Octagon.

i think you'll find that many of the locks and holds from Aikido are found in MMA. The fact that they are found in Jiu Jutsu and hence BJJ means that you don't need Aikido. But again, in bagging the training methodology of another art you are demonstrating your total lack of knowledge of what some training exercises are designed for, and I'm not going to get in a discussion here over 'receiving' as a training method.

Has anyone ever stopped to consider that some instructors may purposely discourage or prevent their students from competing because it would expose their training method as ineffective?

This includes instructors who created martial systems and are long dead.

Again, I would call this style bashing!

 

[Tez3]

QUOTE=Hanzou;1654885]While true that MMA fighters train in multiple disciplines, it's also true that their primary art still defines their fighting style. Ronda Rousey for example had extremely weak striking when she entered MMA, but her expert level Judo skills filled the gaps in her striking ability and allowed her to be champion. Now she's been training in boxing to improve her striking ability, but that improved striking ability simply enhances her Judo abilities, because now she can set up Judo throws from strikes.

The same applies to guys like Chris Holdsworth, and Damien Maia who are mediocre strikers, but incredible Bjj stylists.

If someone was primarily an Aikido, Kung Fu, or whatever stylist, it would be very apparent, because they would be doing techniques never before seen in MMA. Like what Ronda Rousey is currently doing. No one was throwing people like that before she showed up on the scene.[/QUOTE]

That used to be true however these days most MMA fighters train from scratch, starting with no knowledge of any martial art, they train MMA. Time has moved on, the modern MMA fighter is a different animal now. I don't know how many MMA fights you've seen over how many years, I've seen thousands of fights over more than 16 years and trust me I have seen a lot of people throw like Rousey, Judo and BJJ rather than wrestling has long been the core ground style in the UK and Europe. When I first went into MMA, Judo throws were my staple as it was with the others I trained with. I can name several MMA fighters off the top of my head who used throws long before Rousey came on the scene, Jimmy Wallhead comes to mind as well as Phil 'Billy' Harris. making 'statements' like that shows a lack of deep knowledge of MMA, well knowledge anyway.
I will reiterate, Aiki techniques can and are used in MMA, just depends who the fighter is and if he needs a particular technique. The days of a single style fighter who then trains other styles is going, the up and coming fighters are all MMA and no single style.

 

[Hanzou]

So when you guys are teaching a new person to MMA submissions as in locks you put them straight into the ring. Even the title says basic. Because you have no practical experience outside of MMA you have no idea of the training methods of other styles.
Hooray! At last you got the message!

I do Bjj, not MMA. I was merely pointing out that those were examples of what Bas Rutten was talking about.

What has this to do with the OP. I have no idea as to the character of Segal but he is a competent martial artist. I'm sure there are examples of other fighters who might fall into the same classification. This type of character assassination would be in keeping with some of the other MA sites but it's sad to see it appearing on MT.

Read the post I was responding to. Also Segal's character is pretty well known.

i think you'll find that many of the locks and holds from Aikido are found in MMA. The fact that they are found in Jiu Jutsu and hence BJJ means that you don't need Aikido. But again, in bagging the training methodology of another art you are demonstrating your total lack of knowledge of what some training exercises are designed for, and I'm not going to get in a discussion here over 'receiving' as a training method.

While the locks and holds are similar, the method of getting people into those locks and holds are very different. Why can't we see someone catch someone's punch and toss that person across the ring like we see in Aikido demonstrations?

Again, I would call this style bashing!

I didn't mention any style, and I said "some" not "all".

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Has anyone ever stopped to consider that some instructors may purposely discourage or prevent their students from competing because it would expose their training method as ineffective?

This includes instructors who created martial systems and are long dead.

I don't believe if you ever created a MA system in the ancient time that people would not challenge you. Back in the 70th, there was a guy named Li Ming-Hsing in Taiwan who created a new system called "7 skillful fist". He claimed that he could punch harder than Muhammad Ali since he could throw 7 punches in one second, and he believed if he added all 7 punches power as one, it should be more powerful than Ali's punch. Someone brought him to NYC. During a public challenge match, A tiger claw guy from NYC knocked him out within 8 seconds. I have never heard that's person's name since then.

When you are young, you test your skill against other systems. When you are old, you send your students to test their skills against other systems. From your students testing result, you will know whether your teaching method is on the right track or not.

 

[K-man]

So as a percentage of your total system what would the illegal moves be?

Personally I don't think it makes that much difference until you compare very different competitions. And I don't think is makes much difference if you have abbreviated your system. So say a kick boxer would have an easier time boxing than a boxer transitioning to kick boxing.

So it is not the skills you have but cannot use that gets you. It is the skills you don't have.

In all honesty, almost all of the finishing techniques. Without them you are relying on a limited number of submission holds. Most Aikido schools don't train or don't emphasise the real martial nature of Aikido. That is probably because of Ueshiba's profound change of attitude after the war. Daito Ryu was a particularly effective style of fighting and that was what Ueshiba received his teaching ticket for. He distilled the best of Daito Ryu into his style of Aiki Jutsu. With his change of philosophy a lot of the martial nature of Aikido has been lost, just has almost all of the martial aspect of Tai Chi.

But back to your question. I would love to discuss the martial nature of Aikido further but this thread is not the place for that. I pointed out the different areas in an earlier post and reposted it once because it was being taken out of context. If you read that post you should see what I am referring to.

 

[Hanzou]

I don't believe if you ever created a MA system in the ancient time that people would not challenge you. Back in the 70th, there was a guy named Li Ming-Hsing in Taiwan who created a new system called "7 skillful fist". He claimed that he could punch harder than Muhammad Ali since he could throw 7 punches in one second, and he believed if he added all 7 punches power as one, it should be more powerful than Ali's punch. Someone brought him to NYC. During a public challenge match, A tiger claw guy from NYC knocked him out within 8 seconds. I have never heard that's person's name since then.

When you are young, you test your skill against other systems. When you are old, you send your students to test their skills against other systems. From your students testing result, you will know whether your teaching method is on the right track or not.

Yeah, I also remember hearing stories of traditional Jujutsu schools fighting each other constantly in old Japan. Like if you opened up a new dojo, the other schools would storm it and beat the crap out of you and your students. Also the prominent schools would have their best students fight in duels to see which school was superior.

However towards the 18th century the number of striking techniques was severely reduced as they were considered less effective and exert too much energy; instead striking in jujutsu primarily became used as a way to distract your opponent or to unbalance him in lead up to a joint lock, strangle or throw. During the same period the numerous jujutsu schools would challenge each other to duels which became a popular pastime for warriors under a peaceful unified government, from these challenges randori was created to practice without risk of breaking the law and the various styles of each school evolved from combating each other without intention to kill.[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7]

Jujutsu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wonder what changed....[/SUP]