PDA

View Full Version : NHB Fighting and Aikido


Pages : 1 [2]

Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Sanshouaikikai
05-25-2005, 02:04 PM
The only way to substantiate your claims is to do it and show us the video. Don't fight some deadbeat either. Fight someone with a good record and possibly a good street fighting video!


All right, Texas Tim...I will do so...when I have not only the time...but...the opportunity...I WILL do it...here in WNY there's not a lot of MMA stuff, you know? I have actually called and looked up a lot of places to see if I could get into competitions...and there are none! No opportunities for competition for ANYONE interested in that sort of thing. So...if anyone is willing to help me out with that I'll be more than glad to sign up and invite you, Mr. Jester to the fight as well as everyone on this thread! :)

Don't fight some deadbeat either

I would LOATHE the idea of fighting a deadbeat and/or mediocre guy! I always aim for the biggest, toughest, baddest guy out there 'cause you really can't humiliate a deadbeat, LOL!

jester
05-25-2005, 02:41 PM
All right, Texas Tim

I'm from Jersey, just ended up here.

I knew Roy Harris was a BJJ guy but I looked him up for JKD since you mentioned him, and his site is full of really good things. His JKD clinch drills video clip was pretty good. He seems to focus on solid basics.

Good luck in your NHB debut.

p.s. Don't grapple in a public restroom if possible :yuck:

Aristeia
05-25-2005, 05:04 PM
Alan. First of all wrt boxing. The feints, jabs, footwork etc are exactly the things that cannot be safely preserved going from a boxing environment to an MMA one. Read some of Bas Ruttens comments on effective striking in MMA - basically every strike has to be thrown with bad intent.
But lets get to the two broader points which I think are at the heart of what we're talking about.

1. Strength. I think you misunderstand the use of strength in some arts. Wrestlers use technique as much as any martial artist. But they also spa at 100%. Technique is superior when there is a good difference in skill levels. Strength can be used to assist technique that isn't perfect or that is being well defended against. Strength doesn't matter a whole heap when one of the parties is highly skilled and the other isn't. But when skill levels are very similar, attributes (strength size speed endurance) play a major part. This is the same in any art. A skillfill aikidoka can make me hit the mat hard with irimi nage. A strong and skill aikidoka, who is using his strength skillfully, can absolutely bury me in the mat.
The reason why it *seems* that strength is less important in Aikido is that we don't spar with fully resisting opponents (because that's simply not how aikido was designed to work). So we never get to that point where, between similarly matched opponents strength makes the differece.
In short no - wrestling does not rely purely on stength. There is a heap of technique involved. But on a stage like the UFC they are up against other skillful people, so strength is an asset you need to have. As someone said earler - watch high level judo competition. Alot of it looks strength based because the competitors skills cancel each other.

2. "just because most altercations end up on the ground...does not mean that we ALL have to be MMA grapplers who go around tackling people". I know where you're coming from here. But you've made the mirror image of the mistake usually made by the BJJ crowd.
I spend alot of time debating with MMAers and BJJers who think that because say, a BJJer can take out most other martial artists, those martial arts are a waste of time and everyone should do BJJ. There are of course two obvious flaws in that argument.
a. not everyone trains for combat efficiency
b. even if I do train for combat purposes, the fact I can be beaten by a BJJer only bothers me if it's a BJJer I think I'm going to be attacked by. Provided I'm convinced my stuff works against the attacks I'm most likely to face, I'm happy.

Yes, you need to have some knowledge of ground fighting so you can get out of trouble, as you've said. No you don't need to have a "go around tackling" people mindset, just because that's what works in the UFC. BUT, to argue that. and feel the arts you are doing are legitimate DOES NOT mean you have to go around thinking you can beat up UFC fighters. Unless you plan on being attacked by them. Simply put,
What works in the UFC will work in real life BUT that does not imply that what doesn't work in the UFC will not work in real life.
Aikido does not work in UFC type settings. Absolutely not. It would be of limited use against a UFC fighter in a real life setting. But it can be very effective against typical assault type attacks in real life. Isn't that enough?

wendyrowe
05-25-2005, 08:50 PM
Aikido does not work in UFC type settings. Absolutely not.
I'm sure Jason DeLucia will disagree with you.

Aristeia
05-25-2005, 08:56 PM
Heh, I wondered if that would come up. I've had a look around Jasons site and downloaded a bunch of the video. I like alot of what he does, but alot of it looks like Aikido mixed with BJJ (which is dear to my heart). The BJJ stuff looks like BJJ, the aikido stuff looks like Aikido and the stuff in between looks...suspect (eg the "ikkyo" approach to guard passing). Jason is from what I can see an aikido enthusiast with a respectable record in MMA. Which is different to saying he's someone who has effectively used identifiable Aikido in MMA matches. If you think he has indeed done that, I would be very keen to see any footage demonstrating it.

wendyrowe
05-25-2005, 09:11 PM
Heh, I wondered if that would come up. I've had a look around Jasons site and downloaded a bunch of the video. I like alot of what he does, but alot of it looks like Aikido mixed with BJJ (which is dear to my heart). The BJJ stuff looks like BJJ, the aikido stuff looks like Aikido and the stuff in between looks...suspect (eg the "ikkyo" approach to guard passing). Jason is from what I can see an aikido enthusiast with a respectable record in MMA. Which is different to saying he's someone who has effectively used identifiable Aikido in MMA matches. If you think he has indeed done that, I would be very keen to see any footage demonstrating it.
He's a lot more than just an "enthusiast" -- it's more like a life's work. He's very serious about his aikido, studying and refining his technique and using primary sources (such as O'Sensei's videos) for inspiration.

Ideally, our groundwork's more upright than BJJ (more seiza, less sprawling) -- it's very clear in Jason's Combat Aikido DVDs/tapes but we don't have footage of it on aikidog.com yet and don't have much from his Pancrase fights. It's on the list, but the guy who'd been putting up the footage got a new job and that's really cramped our style. We should be able to get some good stuff up in the next couple of months.

Aristeia
05-25-2005, 09:20 PM
Well keep us updated, I know alot of people on this forum (and others) would be keen to see aikido in mma (as opposed to an aikidoka doing bjj, or indeed a bjjer doing aikido :)). I many are also curious about Jason's experience in Aikido. Do you know who he learned his aikido from or has it been mainly from the types of primary sources you describe? (BTW if any readers are curious about the quality of his Aikido you can download clips specifically of him doing aikido techniques from the aikidog site).

Aristeia
05-25-2005, 09:24 PM
As a BTW Wendy, I've looked at purchasing some of his DVDs out of interest, but because I couldn't see any examples of Aikido-as-MMA on the site, was hesitent to fork out the $ - particularly when I earn NZ pesos :-) I suspect I'm not alone in that. So if you can get some samples from the dvds on the site it could help him gain a wider audience. MTCW

Sanshouaikikai
05-25-2005, 09:32 PM
basically every strike has to be thrown with bad intent.

Faking somewhat out like they do in boxing is a good intention?

wendyrowe
05-25-2005, 09:41 PM
As a BTW Wendy, I've looked at purchasing some of his DVDs out of interest, but because I couldn't see any examples of Aikido-as-MMA on the site, was hesitent to fork out the $ - particularly when I earn NZ pesos :-) I suspect I'm not alone in that. So if you can get some samples from the dvds on the site it could help him gain a wider audience. MTCW
Check the Century website centuryfitness.com -- they've been on sale for a few months and might cost less than you expected. (Jun, if that's considered advertising my apologies and feel free to delete it.) As one of the reviewers on aikidog.com said, they really do show aikido rather than MMA training. But his uke is a fighter who was really resisting and didn't fall to avoid atemi; and uke wasn't an aikido guy so he also didn't take ukemi to avoid getting struck or thrown. There's good full-resistance randori, with my favorite by far at the end of the 5th (final) DVD/tape. We'll try to get some clips from it up on aikidog.com -- I'm sure everyone will enjoy watching it, and Jason told me when I asked recently that we've got permission. So now all we need is some free time to spend on the site's computer and we'll put it up.

Aristeia
05-25-2005, 09:49 PM
Cheers, I'll check it out.

Kevin Leavitt
05-26-2005, 01:57 PM
Thanks for the info Wendy. I will be sure to purchase one of the videos. I am very interested since I am a somewhat traditional Aikido guy that is now doing MMA and struggling to make much of it work. (doesn't mean that it doesn't, just that I am struggling!).

Pankration90
05-26-2005, 08:04 PM
Alan M. Rodriguez,
I don't know how much experience you have with wrestling, bjj, mma, etc. but you make a lot of generalisations and it sounds like you have little experience with those styles.

Wrestling is not about strength. If it is, then why have I been able to successfully use it against people 80 lbs. heavier than me?

MMA isn't about strength, either. If you don't want to bulk up and get huge, compete at a lower weight class. That's what they're for. People compete against people their own size. Big guys fight big guys and small guys fight small guys. There are no big size or strength advantages.

If you really want to prove that mma fighters can't fight, I'll help you find someone to compete against. A guy who lives in Buffalo posts on another forum and he might know someone that you could fight. IMO you are seriously underestimating everyone who doesn't do aikido...

Sanshouaikikai
05-27-2005, 01:44 PM
Alan M. Rodriguez,
I don't know how much experience you have with wrestling, bjj, mma, etc. but you make a lot of generalisations and it sounds like you have little experience with those styles.

Wrestling is not about strength. If it is, then why have I been able to successfully use it against people 80 lbs. heavier than me?

MMA isn't about strength, either. If you don't want to bulk up and get huge, compete at a lower weight class. That's what they're for. People compete against people their own size. Big guys fight big guys and small guys fight small guys. There are no big size or strength advantages.

If you really want to prove that mma fighters can't fight, I'll help you find someone to compete against. A guy who lives in Buffalo posts on another forum and he might know someone that you could fight. IMO you are seriously underestimating everyone who doesn't do aikido...


First of all...I have much experience with people who practice grappling styles and have defeated all of them. They weren't deadbeats either. So...my so called "generalizations" are not just generalizations and they do not undermine my experience at all and I will agree that it's not all about strength 'cause I too have defeated grapplers much heavier than I through properly applying technique at the right time however...there is a lot of struggling...hence...it requires strength! Secondly, your comment about people competing against others their own size and weight TOTALLY vindicates my viewpoint! What do you think would happen if...a smaller guy (in PRESENT DAY UFC fighting) went up against a bigger guy? The smaller guy would lose 'cause he would be using his strength and what not because they're simply not complete fighters hence they will use techniques that are going to make them lose! However, if they were to keep the bigger guy at bay and use a very good countering strategy that wouldn't require much of their strength but merely speed and timing they would win! However...from what I've seen in a lot of present day UFC and MMA matches are that they just want to wrestle and grapple and what not and EVERY fight is the same fight...so...they don't use many good and/or innovative techniques that will work if it were to be used by a smaller person against a larger person in a real life or death situation. The third point I want to make is this...I'm originally a JKD guy...I will ALWAYS be a JKD guy. I'm not underestimating people who don't do aikido...I'm telling you that fighting incompletely and saying that it's effective is a lie! Aikido is also an incomplete style...however...for some reason...aikido is the best incomplete style I've ever seen and practiced! This is what ticks me off about the people on this thread in particular...they'll go around saying that aikido is good for self defense and what not and how it's good for smaller people against bigger people but...they don't think that it's effective against guys who "shoot" at your legs even though aikido has many techniques against that (moving out the way is one!)!!! Why practice a fighting style if you don't believe in it's effectiveness? Also...it's not so much the style that's ineffective...it's how the person applies their style to a situation...so...if you think that aikido is ineffective against other people from other styles...then you're not applying correctly and you flat out suck! Go do yoga or something else...don't bash your own style and discourage other people from doing it!

Pankration90
05-27-2005, 02:33 PM
What do you think would happen if...a smaller guy (in PRESENT DAY UFC fighting) went up against a bigger guy? The smaller guy would lose 'cause he would be using his strength and what not because they're simply not complete fighters hence they will use techniques that are going to make them lose!
It depends on the experience of the fighters. If Genki Sudo (a skilled grappler who isn't that big) went up against a huge guy who didn't have the same amount of experience I would put my money on Genki Sudo.

owever...from what I've seen in a lot of present day UFC and MMA matches are that they just want to wrestle and grapple and what not and EVERY fight is the same fight...so...they don't use many good and/or innovative techniques that will work if it were to be used by a smaller person against a larger person in a real life or death situation.
Being a small person myself, if I were in a true life or death situation against a single opponent and I couldn't run away, I wouldn't stand there and try to strike with them. Bigger guys hit harder. I would try to wrap the opponent up in a clinch, break his balance, and take him down where I can use gravity, leverage, and the fact that he is now pinned to the ground to my advantage.

I'm telling you that fighting incompletely and saying that it's effective is a lie! Aikido is also an incomplete style...however...for some reason...aikido is the best incomplete style I've ever seen and practiced! This is what ticks me off about the people on this thread in particular...they'll go around saying that aikido is good for self defense and what not and how it's good for smaller people against bigger people but...they don't think that it's effective against guys who "shoot" at your legs even though aikido has many techniques against that (moving out the way is one!)!!!
This comment also leaves me to believe that you don't have much experience with wrestling or MMA. It's 'incomplete'? Yeah if you want to fight on the street, but if you want to compete than proper MMA training has everything you need. I've never met a guy who wanted to train in MMA just for self defense who didn't realize that it doesn't prepare you to defend against weapons, multiple attackers, de-escalating fights, etc.

You also said that simply moving out of the way is a good way to defend against a double leg... it's not. A proper double leg is not a tackle that is done from five feet away. It's done from the clinch, after distracting the opponent and setting it up. You move in an L (level change down, move forward), not in a diagonal line towards the opponent. When someone shoots in, they take a penetration step between your legs. How can you move to the side or backwards with a leg between yours and two arms wrapped around your legs?

Another thing I think I should bring up is that you've only been doing aikido for a few months. Even if you have beat all these fighters from other styles, that was before you trained in aikido and has nothing to do with your aikido training. How do you know how well aikido works against trained mixed martial artists when you have very little experience in aikido and you've never fought a mixed martial artist?

I think it's funny that you're willing to fight a MMA guy, but not a JKD guy. JKD takes elements from different styles, just like MMA does. A lot of jkd guys use boxing and muay thai strikes, wrestling takedowns and clinching, and groundfighting from bjj or some other style. The only difference is the intent that they train with...

Do you want me to post your challenge on a few other forums for you?

Sanshouaikikai
05-27-2005, 08:33 PM
think it's funny that you're willing to fight a MMA guy, but not a JKD guy. JKD takes elements from different styles, just like MMA does. A lot of jkd jguys use boxing and muay thai strikes, wrestling takedowns and clinching, and groundfighting from bjj or some other style. The only difference is the intent that they train with...

No...JKD came WAAAAY before this MMA wannabe stuff. Like I always tell people...MMA or shootfighting or Pancrase or Luta Livre or w/e you wanna call it is an incomplete wannabe version of JKD! Those styles I just mentioned are not complete...they only consist of 3 ranges of combat and they totally skip one. They go from striking to grappling rather than striking, trapping and grappling. Striking consists of two different ranges which are kicking and punching ranges. Modern MMA fighting totally ignore these facts and go around saying that they're complete fighting systems! Thus...it is A LOT easier for me to defeat an MMA guy over a JKD guy. Yes...PLEASE post my challenge to other forums if you may.

Aristeia
05-27-2005, 09:53 PM
I've done the honors on RMA. Alan how old were you when you started training?

Sanshouaikikai
05-27-2005, 10:30 PM
I'm 18 now...I started martial arts training when I was 6. However, I started aikido in March I believe...I don't even remember, LOL!

Pankration90
05-28-2005, 11:10 PM
No...JKD came WAAAAY before this MMA wannabe stuff.
When they came about has nothing to do with this discussion. I never said MMA came first.

They go from striking to grappling rather than striking, trapping and grappling. Striking consists of two different ranges which are kicking and punching ranges. Modern MMA fighting totally ignore these facts and go around saying that they're complete fighting systems! Thus...it is A LOT easier for me to defeat an MMA guy over a JKD guy.
What is the purpose of considering "Trapping" it's own range? When you're close enough to trap, you're also close enough to punch. Punching and trapping can't be separated because of how far apart you are, it's the same distance. During a fight you'll be going back and forth between the so-called "kicking" and "punching" ranges so fast that the difference is also irrelevent. Trapping also isn't that effective when the opponent doesn't hold their arms out in front of them, waiting for bridge contact.

I'll post the challenge on a couple forums, then.

Sanshouaikikai
05-29-2005, 12:30 PM
What is the purpose of considering "Trapping" it's own range?

JKD looks at fighting from a scientific view rather than an artistic or religious view like in other martial arts and philosophies. That's why the techniques are broken down into "ranges" to better understand the science of fighting. Bruce Lee obviously knew that in actual combat it's ALL blended in all at one time...which is good...however to better understand the essence of fighting you have to break it down scientifically...therefore Jeet Kune Do has ranges.

Trapping also isn't that effective when the opponent doesn't hold their arms out in front of them, waiting for bridge contact.

Of course it does! They don't have to wait for bridge contact and the techniques don't have to be fancy in any way if that's what you're trying to refer to. You can simply trap one arm and go from there to a takedown technique or something...believe me...it does work!

Pankration90
05-29-2005, 02:48 PM
JKD looks at fighting from a scientific view rather than an artistic or religious view like in other martial arts and philosophies. That's why the techniques are broken down into "ranges" to better understand the science of fighting. Bruce Lee obviously knew that in actual combat it's ALL blended in all at one time...which is good...however to better understand the essence of fighting you have to break it down scientifically...therefore Jeet Kune Do has ranges.
The only point of breaking down a fight into "ranges" is for training. When training, you can't isolate "trapping" without turning it into a drill like chi sao. If you're sparring in "trapping" range, you're also sparring in "punching rnage". You can't separate the two, it's the same distance. Why not have a "blocking range" as well? :rolleyes:

Most trapping goes out the window when the opponent keeps their guard by their face and punches like a boxer (pulling their hand back to their face immediately after the punch).

Kevin Leavitt
05-29-2005, 03:12 PM
I find the same thing to be true for many aikido techniques. Many of them are negated or "go out the window" as soon as the opponent adopts a guarded posture and will not violate his center. Usually it goes from this point to the clinch, to the ground fairly rapidly. Not always, but quite often.

However, as soon as you place a weapon into the equation either actual, or percieved/possible, many of these same techniques will start working again.

Adam Alexander
05-29-2005, 04:15 PM
I find the same thing to be true for many aikido techniques. Many of them are negated or "go out the window" as soon as the opponent adopts a guarded posture and will not violate his center. Usually it goes from this point to the clinch, to the ground fairly rapidly. Not always, but quite often.

Seems to me, that all but very few techniques should go out the window in any situation...for example, if someone pushes, you wouldn't use an entering technique right off (that's practically cutting your arsenal in half).

I thought that was the point of the physical part of Aikido...to have the right technique for the occasion, not to fit a round peg in a square hole.

As for the example, seems to me (IMveryHO), a side-strike to the back of the head would force them to do something--once they move, theoretically ;) , they should be yours.

Kevin Leavitt
05-29-2005, 04:35 PM
I thought that was the point of the physical part of Aikido...to have the right technique for the occasion, not to fit a round peg in a square hole.

Agreed, I think this is where some have issues with aikido. It simply doesn't necessarily have the right technique for all occasions, especially when a fight goes to the ground, or from the clinch.

You do need to be very careful not to judge aikido from the "game" aspect of MMA since there are many effective techniques that would be negated outside of the NHB "rules".

It is important to keep everything in proper perspective.

Interesting you mention strikes to back of head. They are illegal in most NHB rules. I find that many good fighters will "turtle" or turn there back to you as a strategy. Not good in a "real fight" (whatever that is).

JasonFDeLucia
05-29-2005, 06:27 PM
No...JKD came WAAAAY before this MMA wannabe stuff. Like I always tell people...MMA or shootfighting or Pancrase or Luta Livre or w/e you wanna call it is an incomplete wannabe version of JKD! Those styles I just mentioned are not complete...they only consist of 3 ranges of combat and they totally skip one. They go from striking to grappling rather than striking, trapping and grappling. Striking consists of two different ranges which are kicking and punching ranges. Modern MMA fighting totally ignore these facts and go around saying that they're complete fighting systems! Thus...it is A LOT easier for me to defeat an MMA guy over a JKD guy. Yes...PLEASE post my challenge to other forums if you may.
i think if you want to test yourself in buffalo you should look up kevin rosier .after you see him i would be interested to here what you say

Sanshouaikikai
05-29-2005, 07:43 PM
The only point of breaking down a fight into "ranges" is for training

Wow...was that obvious or what? That's exactly what I meant when I said;"That's why the techniques are broken down into "ranges" to better understand the science of fighting." The approach to trapping in Jeet Kune Do is an approach that one would use on the type of fighter you mentioned when you said: "...opponent keeps their guard by their face and punches like a boxer (pulling their hand back to their face immediately after the punch)."

Pankration90
05-30-2005, 03:59 PM
Sanshouaikikai,

Have you read "Jun Fan Gung Fu Seeking the Path of Jeet Kune Do" by Kevin Seaman? Even he admits that trapping is difficult against a boxer. This quote reflects my experiences exactly:
Q. My brother does Amateur Boxing. He moves so quickly, I can't seem to trap his hand. Does trapping really work?

A. A boxer's structure makes trapping very difficult. When a boxer hits, they bring their hand right back to their head and usually follow up immediately with a combination. This structure is difficult to trap. Bruce Lee knew this and adapted Jun Fan's kickboxing to handle this problem. In some cases, the best you can achieve is to momentarily trap their punch in flight or capture it in the chamber.
Do you know how it was adapted to deal with a boxer? Bruce Lee incorporated boxing. :rolleyes:

From what I've seen, a lot of JKD guys don't have a scientific approach to fighting. They have a theoretical approach. A scientific approach would be based on empirical evidence, which would require everything to be pressure tested. The stuff that failed would then be thrown out the window. If you want to see scientific JKD, look at the straight blast gym.

Sanshouaikikai
05-30-2005, 06:39 PM
momentarily trap their punch in flight or capture it in the chamber.

You CAN do it...it just takes some time and work...but of course...no one on the streets is going to box you anyway and if they do then they're not good enough boxers so it would be easy anyway, LOL! Why would a boxer or any martial artist be trying to mug people on the streets? Their career must really suck or something! LOL! So it wouldn't be much of a challenge then.

From what I've seen, a lot of JKD guys don't have a scientific approach to fighting. They have a theoretical approach

Like you said..."from what I've seen..." I quite frankly don't know who YOU'VE seen that's a JKD guy that has a theoretical approach to fighting and not a scientific approach. Read "Tao of Jeet Kune Do" which was written by Bruce himself...it'll tell you how scientific and "clinically proven" Jeet Kune Do is. So...as far as I'm concerned you most likely weren't looking at REAL JKD guys or something....and if they were then they are a very rare case of JKD people!

Aristeia
05-31-2005, 01:54 AM
. Read "Tao of Jeet Kune Do" which was written by Bruce himself...it'll tell you how scientific and "clinically proven" Jeet Kune Do is. So...as far as I'm concerned you most likely weren't looking at REAL JKD guys or something....and if they were then they are a very rare case of JKD people!

Umm....I think this is kind of the point. You're basing the scientificness of it on what burce lee wrote in a book. First of all, you need to stop quoting Bruce Lee as if his work is scripture, it makes you sound, well...young. He's not the final word in martial arts, not even close.

The question that's being raised is one of training methodology. What Phillip is saying is that much of the JKD he has seen (SBG notwithstanding) has been in the form of one step sparring type stuff (much like Aikido) as opposed to pressure tested, full resisting sparring matches. Now are you saying that at your JKD school you do go full contact, full resistance and pressure test or are you saying that you beleive the techniques work because bruce lee said so in a book?

rob_liberti
05-31-2005, 09:32 AM
I keep reading this "pressure testing" idea in aikido threads, and I'm starting to get the idea that many people training aikido are not pressure testing their techniques. I guess I don't really understand their process of training then. Isn't the point to continually add power, intensity, drama, etc in a level appropriate way so that the nage can continue to improve? I do this in a coorative model and I got the idea that others in something called a competitive model prettty much do the same thing. Has my aikido gotten to the point where I can sit blind folded in a room and avoid rocks thrown at me by students - most likely not; we'll leave that up to theory because of the whole level-appropiate thing. I do think that my sankyo works a whole lot better because people were challenging it and defeating it for a while until I figured out how I had to change and relax, and hold just so, etc to make the improvements. The challenge should get you thinking and looking to change. If you can't pick it up from class, then it's time to go work with sempai who can help appropriately pressure test your ideas about how to improve things and maybe even give you a pointer or two if your ideas are missing something a bit more fundamental.

My problem with the too fairly exclusive pressure testing approach is that people tend to throw things out before putting enough real time into figuring things out more fundimentally. In some cases this works out really well on the surface level and even helps people get some depth based on their more realitic experiences. It's just that with every pro there is a con. Some of those discarded things might have been REALLY helpful if you had a bit more stick-to-it-ness. YMMV.

Rob

Sanshouaikikai
05-31-2005, 11:50 AM
First of all, you need to stop quoting Bruce Lee as if his work is scripture, it makes you sound, well...young. He's not the final word in martial arts, not even close.

Because he's right about everything he said about traditional martial arts...doesn't mean you have to despise his work as not being the final word in martial arts! How is it not? Considering the fact that all these MMA styles and junk came AFTER he died and invented JKD...doesn't that sound like maybe what Bruce Lee wrote and said had a lot of significance to the point where now...you have almost everyone saying how pointless classical styles are? I think you should re-think that quote there Mr. Fooks.

The question that's being raised is one of training methodology. What Phillip is saying is that much of the JKD he has seen (SBG notwithstanding) has been in the form of one step sparring type stuff (much like Aikido) as opposed to pressure tested, full resisting sparring matches. Now are you saying that at your JKD school you do go full contact, full resistance and pressure test or are you saying that you beleive the techniques work because bruce lee said so in a book?

Jeet Kune Do is about absorbing what is useful and discarding what is useless. It is about being direct and to the point rather than spinning around like an idiot with your opponent like you're in some ballroom dance like some Aikido techniques I've seen and have been taught. I'm not saying Aikido is ineffective because I will never say such a thing...but...there are some[U] techniques that WE ALL KNOW wouldn't work unless you're a 4th degree or something. Anywho...that's way besides the point...JKD has and always will be about pressure tested, fully resisted, all out sparring. Maybe the one step sparring stuff people have seen is because the schools and/or instructors may come from a more traditional wing chun background or something like that and use that kind of sparring...I don't know...but...from what I've been taught, what I have done, and what I have read...has been true scientific fighting.

Adam Alexander
05-31-2005, 12:35 PM
Agreed, I think this is where some have issues with aikido. It simply doesn't necessarily have the right technique for all occasions, especially when a fight goes to the ground, or from the clinch.

I thought that if you applied the techniques we do have (around 3,000 if I understand correctly), you shouldn't be on the ground?

As far as, from the cinch, I thought (again, if I understand correctly) there's LOTS of techniques that still attack the wrists, elbows and shoulders.


You do need to be very careful not to judge aikido from the "game" aspect of MMA since there are many effective techniques that would be negated outside of the NHB "rules".

It is important to keep everything in proper perspective.

Interesting you mention strikes to back of head. They are illegal in most NHB rules. I find that many good fighters will "turtle" or turn there back to you as a strategy. Not good in a "real fight" (whatever that is).

Very true. I guess, from that perspective, why would any of you care about the games in that case?

Kevin Leavitt
05-31-2005, 01:07 PM
I agree you shouldn't be on the ground, and certainly that is a worthwhile goal to strive for, and I believe ultimately this is what you should be training for. I think in the "DO" arts, you must study this way in order to be reaching for the right goal.

However, once you start looking at the reality of the situation, things don't always go as you plan and the "fight chain" is much more complicated and things become unbalanced, and yes, you do sometimes end up on the ground or in really close like the "clinch".

The problem I have had with aikido wrist, arm, and shoulder techniques as traditionally studied in aikido, pretty much requires your hips to be free from your opponents in order to create the proper dynamic movement for them to work. For the most part you pretty much have to irimi and tenkan or perform kokyu to get them to work. (sorry this is hard to describe here and I know over generalistic).

When someone is controllling your hips or body in a guard or clinch...or even holding on to your clothing/gi, it becomes very difficult to do these movements. Ground fighting jiujustsu systems such as BJJ and Judo have adapted variations and strategies that allow for arm, leg, shoulder techniques that can be done in these close quarters. Fulcrum and leverage points are created using various body parts, like "figure four" etc.

I think it is important to consider many different perspectives and strategies depending on the situation or goal you want to achieve. Aikido certainly is a mature, and comprehensive martial art and given the "DO" nature of it, is correct and complete within the context of it's goals.

It is not necessarily a "complete" art when you consider the other goals such as becoming an martially effective fighter. There certainly are other arts that offer things that aikido does not.

Being an infantryman that may have to go into close quarters combat in dark alleys and houses where many suprises lurk, I certainly do not find aikido to be the answer to martial effectiveness.

I do think however you are missing the point when you look at aikido against MY "yardstick" and say it is not complete or lacking. As a "DO" art, it is fine. 99% of the public simply does not need to martial effectiveness of a police officer or a soldier.

A true martial art today considers modern weapon systems, night vision, kevlar armor, stun guns, technical non-lethal weapons..these things replace classical weapons such as tantos, katanas, muskets etc.

It would be illogical to consider these things apart of a traditional martial art, so why would you even judge aikido against other grappling styles that were designed for a particular reason that may not have anything to do with the goals of aikido?

Hope this makes sense...my 5 year old is sitting here bugging me to "wrastle" with him!

kironin
05-31-2005, 01:10 PM
Jeet Kune Do is about absorbing what is useful and discarding what is useless.

of course the problem will always be - useless as defined by who ?

Kevin Leavitt
05-31-2005, 01:18 PM
I pretty much thought human evolvement was about absorbing what was useful and discarding what is useless!

Tony Hudspith
05-31-2005, 02:05 PM
Hi
As a 3rd Dan Aikidoka of many years practise and also a cagefight practitioner I can see the views of many on both sides. I agree that Aikido should not be competitive and that the way of harmony is the right and just way. However, I felt as though I could with testing my skills (Not just Aikido) and therefore took part in a cagefight. Before the fight I got the rules and many of the Aikido techniques are not "legal" moves as they are "too" effective. Work that one out. I have had to change my game plan and have successfully tapped out a few people in practice with a simple nikyo. The "referee" was quick to jump in and stop this with a frown on his face but let it go.
In a summary Aikido is effective given the opportunity but when it comes down to it, no-one wants to try it out for real do they?!?!?!
Practice with Aikido in your hearts

Tony

Sanshouaikikai
05-31-2005, 09:26 PM
Before the fight I got the rules and many of the Aikido techniques are not "legal" moves as they are "too" effective.

That's exactly my point! Wow! Of course...no one's going to believe that 'cause they can't possibly pay tuition to a dojo that teaches an effective style of fighting/ self defense!

Roy Dean
05-31-2005, 11:47 PM
Alan M. Rodriguez = Troll of the Year

You ride the line between naivete and martial zealotry with brilliant balance. Well done!

Talon
06-01-2005, 10:54 AM
Agreed completely!!

Alan M. Rodriguez = Troll of the Year

You ride the line between naivete and martial zealotry with brilliant balance. Well done!

Sanshouaikikai
06-01-2005, 11:53 AM
Alan M. Rodriguez = Troll of the Year

You ride the line between naivete and martial zealotry with brilliant balance. Well done!

Thank you! Thank you! I'm honored to have at least won some recognition in so little time! I can agree totally with the zealotry part...however...I did not intend to be zealous about anything...that all came with the frustration of finding it so difficult to get through everyone's narrow minded and thick skulls something so simple! The naivete part...I totally disagree with...of course...you're obviously going to say something full of prejudice like that 'cause none you guys can handle an 18 year old or any younger person for that matter speaking the truth. Like they always say...the truth hurts...I think it hurts even more when it comes from someone that's not experienced or high ranking in Aikido! However, thanks again! :D

Sanshouaikikai
06-01-2005, 12:05 PM
By the way...calling me a troll was very accurate! For as Webster defines it is, "any of a race of supernatural beings, variously conceived of as giants or dwarfs, living underground or in caves." The only thing I would disagree with is "the underground or in caves" part...I am quite seclusive to an extent...but I do get out a lot...so..that last part doesn't define me ALL that well...but then again...I'm even more honoured in being called "Troll of the Year" or as according to Websters definition, "Supernatural Being of the Year!" Thanks again! :D

Kevin Leavitt
06-01-2005, 12:14 PM
Can't believe I am even going to entertain responding to you at this point...oh well, I am in a mood so, might as well.

I have been on here for a few years and have not found the majority of the people here to be thick headed or narrow minded, frankly I find you more in that category. If you'd stop talking so much, sorry preaching...then you might find that there are some really good people on here that have years of experience from both doing the right things and making mistakes.

The only truths that I have seen on here from you is that you like to talk. Many people have patiently responded to your post, many people have attempted to present you with opporunities, to help educate, and assist you in understanding things, to challenge you...and you fail to respond PERIOD.

Mr Delucia, a well respected fighter, has presented you with an opportunity.

Mr Seiser, presented you with evidence that a guy you quoted as an expert is a witnessed fraud.

I could go on.

I really, really wish I were close to you so I could come train with you and give you the OPPORTUNITY to SHOW me the TRUTH. I think with my background and experience I'd be able to handle it physically and emotionally. (I do have a thick head though...that much is true!).

I am not into putting people into ignore mode, but you my young friend do not impress me with your level of maturity in the least! Hope this helps you find a way to get along with others here on the board.

Get back to me when you can send us a video of your superior training and THEN I will be impressed and respect you as a man.

Ron Tisdale
06-01-2005, 12:22 PM
Nah....superior training doesn't make someone a man...taking care of your responsibilities and behaving like a man does that. He could be the best fighter in the world...wouldn't change my opinion though.

Ron (might change whether or not I say it to his face...) :)

PS Nah....I'd just have to take the beating...

Kevin Leavitt
06-01-2005, 12:29 PM
Thanks Ron...that is basically what I meant to say, but of course didn't!

Bronson
06-01-2005, 12:36 PM
Aikido sucks for fighting. If you want to learn to kick some serious butt you HAVE to take BJJ....those guys can beat up WILD BEARS (http://www.fftimes.com/index.php/3/2005-05-30/21415) ;) :D ;)

Bronson

Ron Tisdale
06-01-2005, 12:41 PM
LOL...saw that on ebudo the other day! Yah, just what *I* want to do...grapple with bears! :)

Bronson
06-01-2005, 12:51 PM
none you guys can handle an 18 year old or any younger person for that matter speaking the truth.

I found this quote on the DROPKICK MURPHY'S (http://www.dropkickmurphys.com/index1.php) website at a time in my life when I needed to read it. It helped me re-examine my life and how I interacted with people; perhaps it can help you too.

When you're young you think you are invincible and you know everything. Then sometime usually during your late 20's you wake up in a sweat in the middle of the night and realize you're an asshole!

Bronson

Sanshouaikikai
06-01-2005, 12:54 PM
and you fail to respond PERIOD.

Mr Delucia, a well respected fighter, has presented you with an opportunity.

Mr Seiser, presented you with evidence that a guy you quoted as an expert is a witnessed fraud.

First of all...I do respond...y'all are just too ignorant to understand! (Like how I put the "y'all" in there?) Secondly, I have spoken with Mr. DeLucia (or a representative of Mr. Delcuia [Ms. Rowe]) about that fighter in my area...I'm still trying to get in contact with that individual. Third...I never disagreed with Mr. Seiser...I had just asked him what happened in the Expo and why he thought that way about Mr. Tennenhouse. For...it seemed to me that Mr. Tennenhouse was making some good points there...apparently...according to Mr. Seiser and other reports about the Expo that I have read...made me change my mind on Mr. Tennenhouse...however, not on what he believes. For...Mr. DeLucia does just what Mr. Tennenhouse "hypothesizes" about. Does he not? Is Mr. DeLucia not a well accomplished NHB fighter who incorporates Aikido into his Kung Fu and MMA repetoire and uses it effectively?

THEN I will be impressed and respect you as a man

As far as I'm concerned...before I came out with that post that said I was a white belt in Aikido and have been training in it for 3 months now...everyone including Mr. Leavitt here was saying how they wanted to train with me and learn somethings and what not...however...after the "white belt comment" everyone starts the name calling and the "teaching" and what not. So...how am I the immature one? I have been honest with everyone here from the start and you guys are all getting bent out of shape because I say what I say...and it's not so much what I say...but because I don't have the rank to say it! LOL! That sounds immature to me! Just to let you know...I am quite accomplished as a general martial artist in Muay Thai and Kung Fu/JKD...so...I don't see what the big deal is! I think I have just as much "authority" to talk as any black belt here! Especially since I actually have been in REAL altercations before unlike a majority of the black belts here! Also what Mr. Leavitt says here, "Get back to me when you can send us a video of your superior training and THEN I will be impressed and respect you as a man" vindicates what I'm saying! He's basically saying that I have to "prove" myself (even though I have done that many times in many real life altercations as well as challenge matches) to him and the people here in order for them to believe me! Wow...that sounds VERY childish! Can't take someone for their own word these days, huh? I'm a hispanic-american man who lives in a rough neighborhood and I do the best that I can to meet my responsibilites as a Christian, an older brother, and an example to the kids in my community. Often I have had to defend myself against people...and all I wanted to do was share that REAL experience with the people here...and if I had never said that I had just started in Aikido...I guarantee you that no one would have that much of a problem with me...would they? So...again I stand on what I know and believe to be true and no one is going to make me change my mind because they think that they know it all and I don't because I'm 18.

P.S.- One of the teachers in my dojo who is a black belt in aikido is 18 years old. Is he naive and inexperienced? Would you listen to him? Are you guys going to say that he doesn't know what he's talking about because he's young? I guarantee you as well...that me and him share the exact same ideas! So...what do you think?

Sanshouaikikai
06-01-2005, 01:07 PM
Quote:
When you're young you think you are invincible and you know everything. Then sometime usually during your late 20's you wake up in a sweat in the middle of the night and realize you're an asshole!

I agree with that quote very much, Mr. Bronson...however...that does not apply to me...'cause I know that I don't know it all...in fact...many times on this thread I have said that I am not an expert. In fact...I believe that martial arts like music is an ongoing thing like some of the other guys on this site have said...I think that just because you're an expert and know ALL the techniques in the art does not mean that you stop learning the art. It's all about how one applies their knowledge of the art...not so much how much they know. I know how to apply the techniques that I have learned in other styles including aikido...to real situations. In contrast...I have heard many, many, many stories about black belts of high rank in the martial arts that have been beaten senseless in street fights against 1 person (who was unarmed and unskilled in the MA). However, me and other people...when I was beginning in the martial arts have used my knowledge of it in many of my altercations that I have been in...and I was always the victor!!! So...is rank and "dojo" experience really all that important?

Kevin Leavitt
06-01-2005, 01:29 PM
My problem with you lay not in your age, level of knowledge or experience, but your general overall attitude that comes across and level of respect for others. It has nothing to do with rank or age.

In the short few days you have been here you have called people "narrow-minded", "thick-headed" and "igonorant". Of course you did not direct it at any one person, as such, I must assume you mean "us" as a group.

You are not the first person to come to aikido with REAL martial experiences, there are many of us out there that have experiences such as yours and then some. They/we just tend to be a little more humble of them, or sometimes even embarrassed by some of the things we did in our youth that at the time seemed like the thing to do, but as we got older and gained perspective, realized the naivity, foolness, and immaturity of our actions.

It is because of these actions, that we may tend to be patient with you since we have been there done that ourselves.

It may be wrong of me or slightly immature of me to "bait you" into proving yourself via video or other such methods, but frankly sometimes it is the only way to help someone look in the mirror and gain some introspect.

At this point, my prediction is that you probably not "get it" and will grow board with us ignorant, thick-headed, narrow-minded types and simply go on your way like many do that come into this art. Or maybe you will prove me wrong and grow as a person.

Aristeia
06-01-2005, 05:02 PM
Alan, the debate you are having with some of us isn't because we thing you are young and inexperienced. What makes you sound naiive is the content of your posts. Especially the claim that you could embarrass a professional, UFC level fighter. The claim that people who fight for a living don't know what they are doing. The claim that anyone who has studied Aikido for a good period of time should be able to beat a UFC fighter without problem (this is where your lack of experience in Aikido is a problem). No, people will not take your word on these things. Some claims seem so unlikely people need to see evidence to accept them. If I stated that I was actually George Bush posting under a pseudonym, people would want to see some evidence of that. Same thing here. Personally I think you need to find someone to test your claims against. I hope you manage to get in touch with Kevin Rosier. I think once you've really done this your training and approach to it will be better for it.

Aristeia
06-01-2005, 05:08 PM
two P.S.
1. I don't think anyone has claimed that Aikido is ineffective. Simply that it's not designed for, and would not be all that useful in, defeating an MMA style fighter. Which is quite different to saying it is not useful for self defence.
2. If you are a troll (which I'm still undecided on ) kudos, it's a good job.

Sanshouaikikai
06-02-2005, 10:24 PM
See...Mr. Fooks....that's my point....is not aikido made for a smaller person to ward off a stronger attacker with minimal effort and strength? So...if that's the case why is it not useful in MMA? How come Jason DeLucia can use Aikido techniques and even put out videos on how to use Aikido techniques for MMA and what not...and do it in an effective and successful way? I agree...if an Aikidoka wants to compete in MMA, he or she better learn how to punch, kick, ground fight, and take hits as well, you know? However...I think it's just as effective as any other art if applied properly at the right time...now...when I say "properly" I'm not saying that you have to do certain techniques perfectly like you would do during a test...but "properly" as in the right technique for the right situation at the right time. Why is that such a bad and naive thing to say?

Aristeia
06-03-2005, 01:52 AM
See...Mr. Fooks....that's my point....is not aikido made for a smaller person to ward off a stronger attacker with minimal effort and strength?

Well yeah, but so is BJJ, and judo. and karate and....show me a martial art that *doesn't* claim that. Just because an MA was designed to do something doesn't mean you instantly have that ability after a bit of practice. Go back to my comments on strength - against skilled trained fighers size and strength matter.

So...if that's the case why is it not useful in MMA? Skilled trained fighters who are not assaulting you so much as fighting in a sparring mindset. Which is *not* what Aikido was designed to deal with
How come Jason DeLucia can use Aikido techniques and even put out videos on how to use Aikido techniques for MMA and what not...and do it in an effective and successful way? Well the jury is still out on Jason.DeLucia. We know he has had some degree of success in MMA. We know he studies Aikido (although it seems to difficult to find out under whom). But there's no evidence that I've seen to date of him *using Aikido tecniques in a competitive setting against MMAers* (let alone anyone at UFC level).
when I say "properly" I'm not saying that you have to do certain techniques perfectly like you would do during a test...but "properly" as in the right technique for the right situation at the right time. I agree with your use of "proper technique" where we disagree is that I would contecnt that an MMA fight is not the "right situation".
Why is that such a bad and naive thing to say? I'm still not sure whether you don't understand MMA fighting or you don't understand Aikido or both. Let us know when you find that school - hell it don't even have to be MMA, a decent BJJ school will do ya.

Ron Tisdale
06-03-2005, 08:12 AM
However...I think it's just as effective as any other art if applied properly at the right time...now...when I say "properly" I'm not saying that you have to do certain techniques perfectly like you would do during a test...but "properly" as in the right technique for the right situation at the right time. Why is that such a bad and naive thing to say?

a) its not such a bad or naive thing to say

b) its not what you've BEEN saying

c) its really easy to say...not so easy to DO under PREASURE

d) the false bravado on the net is old...and getting older...

RT

Kevin Leavitt
06-03-2005, 03:17 PM
I think you are splitting hairs. You will never have two people agree on exactly what aikido is or isn't, or what it can do, or was designed to do.

There are aikido techniques that will work in MMA situations. There are techniques that will not work.

It is up to the individual to find and discover what they want aikido to do for them.

What I believe you will find is that the aiki principles in aikido are universal principles, at least that is what I have heard Saotome sensei preach over and over and over...it is not about learning technique, but learning principles. I can say with 100% degree certainty that the PRINCIPLES of aikido can be applied 100% to MMA and must to ultimately be sucessful. Technique is complete a different matter.

What I think where things breakdown and get devisive is over technique. Strategy comes before technique. Most Aikido training methodologies, or strategy does not align very well with MMA, and therefore you find that many will say "no" aikido does not work...others say yes aikido works.

Both sides are missing the whole point. It is about learning principles.

If my focus was soley on MMA fighting, then I can think of much more effective training strategies/methodologies than wasting my time with aikido.

If my objective was self defense, I can think of many bettter ways than wasting my time with aikido. To include the proper use of pepper spray, a ASP baton, marksmanship classes etc.

If my objective was to be the baddest dude on the block and run around and tell everyone how I can beat everyone up and that every other style other than what I do is crap i'd spend my time surrounding myself with people and a system that supported and confirmed my delusional state.

If my objective was to understand dyanmics of movement, a better understanding of martial movement, balance, control, understanding the mind/autonomic nervous system, how perceptions, attitudes, and paradigms, emotions, personalities, egos, play into the whole of the human sphere...and how all that relates to the physical manifestation of conflict, well I would spend my time with an internal art like aikido or tai chi. Why? it helps me become a better person, resolve conflict at the lowest level, gain more subtleness in my martial abilities etc.

It simply is not very good at developing what I would call "short/direct/effective martial skills. Certainly the techniques are there, but we could argue all day about which ones are and are not right for what particular situation.

L. Camejo
06-03-2005, 05:57 PM
I think the issue of effectiveness has less to do with what techniques you know and a lot more to do with how you handle yourself when under serious pressure and how well you stick to the principles you've been training in all along (regardless of what system you do).

Anyone can put a few rounds into a paper target accurately or execute a certain strike or technique very well when not under extreme pressure. Do the same thing with someone rushing at you with full intent to seriously damage you and/or with a weapon to take you out and the accuracy and the effectiveness of something learnt under calm conditions may not be so guaranteed. Ron's point "C" above is very apt imo.

It makes no sense imo to learn an entire bag of methods to defend oneself with and have that bag removed from your grasp because your adrenaline dump caused you to freeze or lose motor control. To me the techniques are very secondary.

Part of why Judo, MMA and BJJ type systems work in reality to an extent have to do with the practitioner getting accustomed to applying techniques under pressure and adrenal stress. Aikido training done with similar methods regarding operating under pressure and this sort of stress can have similar results.

Just a few thoughts.
LC:ai::ki:

Sanshouaikikai
06-03-2005, 11:00 PM
I think the issue of effectiveness has less to do with what techniques you know and a lot more to do with how you handle yourself when under serious pressure and how well you stick to the principles you've been training in all along (regardless of what system you do).

Anyone can put a few rounds into a paper target accurately or execute a certain strike or technique very well when not under extreme pressure. Do the same thing with someone rushing at you with full intent to seriously damage you and/or with a weapon to take you out and the accuracy and the effectiveness of something learnt under calm conditions may not be so guaranteed. Ron's point "C" above is very apt imo.

It makes no sense imo to learn an entire bag of methods to defend oneself with and have that bag removed from your grasp because your adrenaline dump caused you to freeze or lose motor control. To me the techniques are very secondary.

Part of why Judo, MMA and BJJ type systems work in reality to an extent have to do with the practitioner getting accustomed to applying techniques under pressure and adrenal stress. Aikido training done with similar methods regarding operating under pressure and this sort of stress can have similar results.

Just a few thoughts.
LC:ai::ki:

Good thoughts, Mr. Camejo! Considering that Law Enforcement personnel are taught Aikido techniques (of which I know many cops who are teachers of Aikido) just vindicates the fact that aikido works just as well as any other martial art under pressure...of course...if applied appropriately by the individual and what not and I know that we ALL can agree that cops can come under a lot of pressure!

Kevin Leavitt
06-04-2005, 04:24 AM
good points Larry..this has been my experience too!

SlowLerner
02-11-2016, 08:43 PM
I realise this is an old thread, but it is a topic I have been considering lately.

I think the problem with applying Aikido in NHB comps is the goals are totally different.
NHB is about dominating someone, Aikido is about keeping yourself and others out of harm.

On the technique side of things, the objectives of the UFC is to either knock someone out with a strike, choke/strangle them out or make them submit with a joint lock.
Traditional Aikido doesn't teach you any of these things in my experience.

It is like bringing a cricket bat to a tennis match.
(Although if I had a tennis racquet and Roger Federer had a cricket bat he would probably still beat me at tennis..)

I realise Aikido has throws and pins, but they dont fit with the objectives of the UFC.
Some Aikido techniques will only be practical if weapons are involved...

Does this make Aikido useless in 'real life'?

On the application side of things, the techniques aren't necessarily meant to 'work' in all situations (although they might), but are just tools to teach you Aiki. Like a cookbook is used to teach you how to cook.
If you try to apply a specific technique at a specific time, it's like trying to bake and eat the cookbook.
This is what I believe the 'formless' (Takemusu) side of Aikido is about; applying principals, not techniques.

Perhaps some of the underlying principals you learn from studying the techniques can be carried across, but fighting people is different to controlling people / staying out of harm.

I feel people need to consider the context they want their personal style to be effective in and train accordingly.

SlowLerner
02-12-2016, 05:28 AM
BTW. When I refer to joint locks above I mean arm bars etc applied as an end goal. Of course there are joint locks in Aikido but I believe they are used for kazushi and to allow transition to other techniques.

earnest aikidoka
02-12-2016, 05:17 PM
Everytime I watch one of those No Holds Barred Fighting Tournaments (UFC, Pride, Extreme Fighting) I always wonder how a seasoned aikido practitioner would do. A skilled aikido practioner should be able to defend against type of attack reasonable well and a master should be able to fend of even skilled attackers quite easily. So why haven't we seen one?

I know that as aikido practitioners we use our art for self-defense so seeking a fight is kind of against our creed, but I get frustrated when I see all these mixed martial artists claiming their fighting system is supreme and that the traditional arts are outdated and ineffective. Most of these fighters aren't even martial artists but wrestlers with a few months of boxing training. Are they more effective than an aikido practioner with years/decades of training under his belt?

Anybody got an opinion on this?

Scott in Kansas

Aikido would not work in NHB fighting, but not for the reasons you would think.

The difference between the two, I would think, can be expressed between competitive and combative shooting.

A soldier would shoot differently from an Olympic marksman. A soldier would utilize different shooting techniques and principles geared towards a high-stress, instinct heavy environment. Which could vary from shooting to kill, to defending a vital objective or person, sometimes under situations where the soldier is weighed down by armor, gear or civilians.

An Olympic Marksman would shoot to score points, in a controlled environment where the focus is to place their shots to get their points. The stress, while present, would significantly differ from the kind of stress a soldier would be subjected to. As a result, their preparation would also be different.

Now aikido is a budo, akin to military shooting. It is a skill devoted to training a person to act calmly in situations that could provide great challenges. Multiple opponents, weapons, hostages, the situations an aikidoka would face can be compared to a battlefield. Let your guard down, and death occurs.

NHB is fighting in a controlled, competitive environment. Just like an Olympic Marksman. A stressful yet static situation that necessitates intense focus on the objective of victory against an opponent in an generally unchanging situation. Aikido, in contrast demands an open, flexible mind and broad focus, aware of any potential dangers that could harm you or loved ones.

The competitive shooting and military shooting are two different beasts, requiring different methods of taming. Aikido and NHB fighting is the same thing, an Aikidoka would likely not have much success in a ring. At the same time, a NHB fighter would probably be the worst off if he attacked an Aikidoka in a bar or street. Both are effective in their own way, in their own times and their own environments.

An Aikidoka could survive in a cage, but he would likely not win. A NHB fighter could escape a knife attack, but he would likely not have known how to defuse or avoid an attack altogether. Which is better?

Michael Douglas
02-13-2016, 11:46 AM
I realise this is an old thread, .
2005 is almost last century.
I have a child younger than this thread!

Nicholas Eschenbruch
02-13-2016, 01:46 PM
2005 is almost last century.
I have a child younger than this thread!

Your child is certainly a lot more interesting, too. But I guess all worn debates need rehashing for new generations...

SlowLerner
02-13-2016, 07:57 PM
applying principals, not techniques.

Might work in the school yard. LOL!

kewms
02-13-2016, 10:20 PM
An Aikidoka could survive in a cage, but he would likely not win. A NHB fighter could escape a knife attack, but he would likely not have known how to defuse or avoid an attack altogether. Which is better?

Fighting in a cage is optional. Dealing with real life is not.

Also, I'd much rather describe the events in question as "mixed martial arts." It's pretty silly to call any event with a referee "no holds barred."

Katherine

Demetrio Cereijo
02-14-2016, 07:42 AM
Old thread, same old arguments... nihil sub sole novum.

dps
02-14-2016, 07:51 AM
Probably has been posted before:

http://aikido-mma.blogspot.com/

dps

earnest aikidoka
02-14-2016, 10:36 AM
Fighting in a cage is optional. Dealing with real life is not.

Also, I'd much rather describe the events in question as "mixed martial arts." It's pretty silly to call any event with a referee "no holds barred."

Katherine

OP's post, OP's rules, OP's definitions. And some people fight because that's how they put food on the table. To them, that ain't much of an option.

Rupert Atkinson
02-14-2016, 04:48 PM
Fighting in a cage is optional. Dealing with real life is not.

Also, I'd much rather describe the events in question as "mixed martial arts." It's pretty silly to call any event with a referee "no holds barred."

Katherine

Fighting is a cage is totally stupid and for the most part creates stupid people. I can't even watch that crap. Aikido is far better than that; We aim to avoid trouble so walking into a cage to fight is about as stupid as you can get.

rugwithlegs
02-14-2016, 07:29 PM
Wow, lotta people came out on Valentine's Day for this.

MMA is a business and sport venture. Many other arts now are, and they want money and food on the table. Letting some arts and schools tell you what is reality is, is like asking a used car salesman what he thinks the best cars are, and if he thinks you need to buy a new car. Yes, we are all where we are because we have a bias and a preference.

sakumeikan
02-15-2016, 04:17 AM
Jim, aikidoka are NOT capable of groundwork.
(Newaza)
Of course, neither are boxers, kick boxers etc. It doesn't detract from their ability, but it certainly means that they will NOT win a fight on the ground against a groundwork fighter.
However, suwari-waza will give aikidoka an advantage on the ground against an opponent who does not know groundwork.
I would like to add that I agree with the fact that arts come and go. Arts, lately, seem designed to beat the last art that was the fad.
See where you are weak, strengthen, move on.
Personally I think aikido is for people who have decided not to fight. For whatever reason.
Groundwork is not very aiki, until you can do it.
Then it IS aiki. But you still have to learn it to do it. ;) Get ready for pain and exhaustion if you do...:D

Dear Mark,
Having practiced with a lot of Aikidoka I can say that your syayement about aikidoka not being able to do newaza is incorrect. The late Chiba Sensei was not only tremendous at suwariwaza he also was quite formidable in groundwork.His father in law;Sekiya Sensei \ was also very good a holddowns.He held me down with Kesa Gatame and despite my experience of Judo I could not budge him.You seem to believe that aikidoka are somehow passive .Not in my book .You might want to meet some guys I know who you would not want to tangle with.Hery Ellis is always saying that there are too many people promoting aikido as flowery stuff.I tend to agree with him.Cheers, Joe.

rugwithlegs
02-15-2016, 04:17 AM
I'd much rather describe the events in question as "mixed martial arts." It's pretty silly to call any event with a referee "no holds barred."

Katherine

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_martial_arts_rules

The rules governing most MMA associations.

Demetrio Cereijo
02-15-2016, 04:49 AM
The late Chiba Sensei was not only tremendous at suwariwaza he also was quite formidable in groundwork.His father in law;Sekiya Sensei \ was also very good a holddowns.He held me down with Kesa Gatame and despite my experience of Judo I could not budge him..

I believe both Chiba and Sekiya had years of Judo expereince before starting Aikido.

rugwithlegs
02-15-2016, 06:02 AM
Judo experience before Aikido? Yeah, so did Shioda. So did Tomiki. So did Morihei Ueshiba.

sakumeikan
02-15-2016, 04:18 PM
I believe both Chiba and Sekiya had years of Judo expereince before starting Aikido.

Dear Demetrio,
Just like myself.I did Judo for 13Ii4 years prior to Aikido. I met many famous judoka such as Kenshiro Abbe, Anto Geesink, Saburo Matsushita, Kisaburo Watanabe, George Kerr,.My own teacher Tam Mc Dermott in over 13 years despite being 90 % disabled in the time I saw him he was never thrown by anyone.He was a student of T.Kawamura , a very famous Kodokan teacher.It was due to my encounter with Kenshiro Abbe I took up Aikido.Abbe Sensei was a legend.One of the few men to beat Kimura.My main influence [as if you have not figured out ] in Aikido was Chiba Sensei.Sensei still remains in my mind one of the greatest Aikidoka ever.Sadly missed I also learned a lot fromSekiya Sensei.I also miss him very much..Cheers, Joe.

Demetrio Cereijo
02-15-2016, 04:47 PM
Joe

Would you say, from your experience, there is a significant difference between Aikido people with serious Judo background and the ones whithout it?

Regards.

sakumeikan
02-23-2016, 10:06 AM
Joe

Would you say, from your experience, there is a significant difference between Aikido people with serious Judo background and the ones whithout it?

Regards.
Dear Demetrio, An interesting question.Generally I find Judo guys physically more powerful in terms of strength.The maai in Aikido is also different inasmuch a judoka prefers close quarters maai and likes to grip the gi [usually in a manner akin to King Kong].of his opponent.They also stand in the basic shizentai posture rather than hamni.At the same time many judo ka have moved from judo to aikido and have been quite successful.Chiba Sensei /Kanai Sensei come to mind here as well as teachers such as Kenshiro Abbe..Even Anton Geesink had some knowledge of Aikido.I think [and I may be wrong here]the students who have serious Judo experience have a distinct advantage ,Its just that I think that having been used to grappling /arm locks, strangulations , groundwork an
experinced judoka is a tad more battle hardened than a non judo aikidoka,Once again its all about the person not what he /she does.I know and have trained with pretty tough cookies who have not done.Perhaps other contributors here on the foum would care to enter the debate?Cue in Henry Ellis???? cheers, Joe.

Greg Jennings
02-24-2016, 07:27 AM
Judo players have *awesome* balance.