PDA

View Full Version : Integrating aikido with other martial arts.


Please visit our sponsor:
 

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


MarkWatson
04-21-2009, 02:06 PM
I have noticed that many sensei's i have trained wih are also dan grades in many different martial arts, including jui-jitsu, hapkido, ninjitsu and others (in one case krav maga).

I would love to start doing other martial arts but dont have the time.

I would like to hear peoples thoughts on 'mixed martial arts' as i were :P

Mark.

Phil Van Treese
04-21-2009, 03:40 PM
Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is a waste for me. To me it's like a salad bowl and you throw everything in including the kitchen sink, mix it up and call it something else. That just means rubbish. I am dual ranked in judo (Rokudan) and Tomiki Aikido (Shichidan) and I don't mix the 2 up. They are both pure martial arts and they will stay that way for me. I get calls all the time inquiring about "Combat Aikido" and the difference between "Combat Aikido" and "Real Aikido". If you want to take another martial art too, that's great but don't try to mix them up. I got a flyer one time not long ago that said "Master Jung's 'Tai Do Hua---8 martial arts taught as 1!!!! One of the "martial arts" he taught was BUDO!!!! MMA at its best!!!!! hahaha

Kevin Leavitt
04-21-2009, 04:05 PM
I think good training methodoloies are what they are good. The good ones have survived and continue because they teach some good things.

I think there is value in study different martial arts (I study three: Judo, Aikido, BJJ).

I practice all three separate and distinct. However, there is a synthesis and cross over that occurs between all of them since they are all pretty much related in someway.

I think it is up to the martial artist to internalize and develop his/her own practice and interpretation.

I do think though that there is also much merit and a good reason to keep them separate.

gdandscompserv
04-21-2009, 04:12 PM
Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is a waste for me.I am dual ranked in judo (Rokudan) and Tomiki Aikido (Shichidan) and I don't mix the 2 up.
Oh the irony.:D

Abasan
04-21-2009, 07:58 PM
Hmmm,

I agree each art has depth on its own that really requires thorough practice to reveal. But its never a bad idea to pick up another art that interests you if you can manage it. But you said yourself you don't have the time so why bother asking?

I see some weakness in the aikido entry and positioning the way we are taught in one class that is dispelled when another teacher teaches it the way he understands it. With the first school, the teacher discourages active questions/insights on real world application of the aikido moves, and with the 2nd school the teacher welcomes it.

Because my 2nd art demands real world application, I've had trouble in reconciling it with my first aikido school. But that is where my 2nd aikido school comes into play. Now the 2nd aikido teacher has had more teachers exposing him to aikido. He's had yoshinkan, shin shin toitsu, aikikai and daitoryu. I think because of that he's able to deliver both the aiki and martial aspect in his art.

Problem for me he's in another country so I only get to see him twice a year.

The point I'm trying to make here is that, if you find a good aikido teacher, this art is enough. I know respected people like Kevin will argue the point of grappling and such that aikidoist don't do. Trust me, I've seen a good aikidoist fend off a good grappler, a Muay Thai prize fighter and then some. I'll be the first to say I'm not in his league. But you see, its possible to achieve martial prowess with just one art. (It doesn't equate to aikido better than XYZ art though.) You just got to understand how it works. That comes with intense perseverance.

CNYMike
04-22-2009, 01:02 AM
I have noticed that many sensei's i have trained wih are also dan grades in many different martial arts, including jui-jitsu, hapkido, ninjitsu and others (in one case krav maga).

I would love to start doing other martial arts but dont have the time.

I would like to hear peoples thoughts on 'mixed martial arts' as i were :P

Mark.

I didn't set out to do five martial arts at once. It's more accurate to say I am such a huge creature of habit that instead of switching from art A to art B, I keep doing A and B. And not all at once, either.

So in 1996, I was just doing Karate. In 1997, I started doing Kali, and I kept doing Karate. In 2000, I added Tai Chi to the mix. In 2003, Silat got added in because one of my Kali teachers started teaching that. In 2004, I returned to Aikido after a 16 year abscence and found I appreciate it more because my Kali instructors had drilled into me that every art has something to offer as it is, although it might be hard in some cases to figure out what. In 2006, I stopped doing Tai Chi, for reasons I won't get into here, and added Jun Fan Gung Fu/Jeet Kune Do to the mix. So it is more something that has accumulated over time as opposed to something I set out to do. Somenone else might have switched every time, which is fine.

I don't try to consciously integrate arts, although in my morning warm-ups, I do stretches from Silat side-by-side with Aikido because both do a lot on the floor, so in that regard they seem to compliment each other. Other combinations may not work so well. I see that as something requiring a lot of time and thought to identify if things "fit" as opposed to just slapping things together and calling it a new martial art.

Michael Varin
04-22-2009, 02:33 AM
I think there is value in study different martial arts (I study three: Judo, Aikido, BJJ).

I practice all three separate and distinct. However, there is a synthesis and cross over that occurs between all of them since they are all pretty much related in someway.

I think it's interesting that many people seem to forget that all three of these arts are 20th Century developments, and subsets of older, more diverse arts.

It's actually nice that each has preserved important aspects that the others did away with. To a degree, each also made some innovations that the others did not.

I believe these three can be fitted together seamlessly and give a well-rounded repertoire.

I think it is up to the martial artist to internalize and develop his/her own practice and interpretation.

Excellent point.

This is exactly what most of the supposedly great martial artists are recognized as doing (certainly Ueshiba, Kano, and Gracie).

Why criticize others for doing the same thing?

Amir Krause
04-22-2009, 05:40 AM
As opposed to what some (mostly beginners) think, a martial art is not the techniques, rather it is more a combination of multiple elements, partial list:
- state of mind,
- strategic concepts,
- forms of movement,
- ways of triggering responses,
- methodological approach,
- threats
- level of violence in response (desired end state)

When someone else integrates multiple arts, he is in fact creating a new M.A. it might be better in some respects to some people, or not. It is rarely better in all respects compared to any of the parenting M.A.

The best way is to learn (or at least) expose yourself to multiple M.A. and then perform the mix yourself. Note that in some cases, exposure to other M.A. is sufficient for you to realize more on the things you do.

Amir

Michael Varin
04-22-2009, 07:36 PM
As opposed to what some (mostly beginners) think, a martial art is not the techniques, rather it is more a combination of multiple elements, partial list:
- state of mind,
- strategic concepts,
- forms of movement,
- ways of triggering responses,
- methodological approach,
- threats
- level of violence in response (desired end state)

"Strategic concepts," "forms of movement," and "threats" are all related, I would say inseparably so, to the techniques a martial art utilizes. "Level of violence in response" is also related to the choice of techniques, albeit to a lesser degree.

In the natural world, form follows function (maybe, form fits function is more accurate, but it has less of a ring that way.)

"All things in nature have a shape, that is to say, a form, an outward semblance, that tells us what they are, that distinguishes them from ourselves and from each other. -- Unfailingly in nature these shapes express the inner life, the native quality, of the animal, tree, bird, fish, that they present to us; they are so characteristic, so recognizable, that we say, simply, it is 'natural' it should be so. . . . Unceasingly the essence of things is taking shape in the matter of things, and this unspeakable process we call birth and growth." -- Louis Sullivan

Ketsan
04-22-2009, 08:52 PM
The more I train the more I think there are only two martial arts subdivided into several schools.

The older art is the battlefield/self defence stuff. It's mindset is that it can teach principles and can develop in you the mental abilities to face up to conflict but it can't really teach you how to fight because there are so many variables in actual fighting.
All the schools of this art contain elements of striking, joint locking, weapons and throwing but utilise them in different proportions.

The newer one is the sporting one which has the mindset that finding and learning useful techniques is all that matters and that under controled circumstances these techniques can be shown to be effective in uncontroled circumstances.

dps
04-23-2009, 03:31 AM
The more I train the more I think there are only two martial arts subdivided into several schools.

The older art is the battlefield/self defence stuff. It's mindset is that it can teach principles and can develop in you the mental abilities to face up to conflict but it can't really teach you how to fight because there are so many variables in actual fighting.
All the schools of this art contain elements of striking, joint locking, weapons and throwing but utilise them in different proportions.

The newer one is the sporting one which has the mindset that finding and learning useful techniques is all that matters and that under controled circumstances these techniques can be shown to be effective in uncontroled circumstances.

Couldn't agree more, very good.

David

JimCooper
04-23-2009, 04:40 AM
I would like to hear peoples thoughts on 'mixed martial arts' as i were

I've done 3 different arts over the years (karate, jujutsu, aikido), and each had something to add that the others were weak in.

I've found that aikido people (up to and including a couple of 6th dans) tend to be very poor at striking techniques if they haven't studied something like karate or kung fu. And as for kicking... :)

Jujutsu and judo normally have a lot more groundwork and grappling than either of the other two. They also train in taking harder breakfalls than aikido, IME. But (again, IME) there tends to be more strength against strength involved. I'm not sure there is supposed to be :-)

Aikido is in many ways the most difficult technically, but I find it teaches better movements (blending, redirecting and so on). Karate is very weak in this regard, as so much of the training is in lines and directly forwards and directly backwards. Most karate dojo don't do any sort of throwing, locking, breakfalls etc either.

So personally, I find you can take a bit from everywhere and make it fit together. Eventually, you find that the same principles are common to all of them. There are only so many ways to hit, throw or apply a lock, after all.

However, I would suggest getting reasonable (ie first dan) at one art first, then adding others afterwards.

Amir Krause
04-23-2009, 06:56 AM
"Strategic concepts," "forms of movement," and "threats" are all related, I would say inseparably so, to the techniques a martial art utilizes. "Level of violence in response" is also related to the choice of techniques, albeit to a lesser degree.

In the natural world, form follows function (maybe, form fits function is more accurate, but it has less of a ring that way.)

"All things in nature have a shape, that is to say, a form, an outward semblance, that tells us what they are, that distinguishes them from ourselves and from each other. -- Unfailingly in nature these shapes express the inner life, the native quality, of the animal, tree, bird, fish, that they present to us; they are so characteristic, so recognizable, that we say, simply, it is 'natural' it should be so. . . . Unceasingly the essence of things is taking shape in the matter of things, and this unspeakable process we call birth and growth." -- Louis Sullivan

In some ways, I agree, on the other hand, very similar threats and cultures have created multiple M.A. (see how many Ju-jutsu styles there are, not all are similar).

The more I train the more I think there are only two martial arts subdivided into several schools.

The older art is the battlefield/self defence stuff. It's mindset is that it can teach principles and can develop in you the mental abilities to face up to conflict but it can't really teach you how to fight because there are so many variables in actual fighting.
All the schools of this art contain elements of striking, joint locking, weapons and throwing but utilise them in different proportions.

The newer one is the sporting one which has the mindset that finding and learning useful techniques is all that matters and that under controled circumstances these techniques can be shown to be effective in uncontroled circumstances.

Just note that sporting M.A. are often the older ones, and not the other way around.

Amir

Erick Mead
04-23-2009, 08:55 AM
I think there is value in study different martial arts (I study three: Judo, Aikido, BJJ).

I practice all three separate and distinct. However, there is a synthesis and cross over that occurs between all of them since they are all pretty much related in someway.

I think it is up to the martial artist to internalize and develop his/her own practice and interpretation.

I do think though that there is also much merit and a good reason to keep them separate.I think that the number of people who can think and move deeply within even one art are very few and far between. It is depth in any art that allows the observational skill to see where the differences between arts resolve to commonalities. The commonalities are worthwhile, but I don't think they are sought easily in parallel -- because they all seem lie in the nuances, which require that depth of movement and thought to perceive well.

But, more personally, I find it simply distracting -- like trying to speak English, French and Urdu in company in quick succession -- especially because I haven't even learned any Urdu ....

Though I can ask for a beer in ten languages -- and let's be serious -- what else do you really need?? :D

salim
04-23-2009, 08:58 AM
There is a synthesis and a cross over that occurs between some martial arts. See the awesome videos. I love it. It works for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7GfQdB9a8Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SivWAcPlzFg&NR=1

Lyle Laizure
04-23-2009, 12:58 PM
I think what everyone is missing is that it isn't the art that is good or bad. All martial arts have merit and are efective. All martial arts have changed over the years simply because combat is no longer what it used to be. Whether a martial art is effective or not comes down to the individual.

dalen7
04-23-2009, 03:43 PM
Well since your asking for opinions... :D

Personally Im into the idea of mixing Thai Boxing with Aikido...as well as B.J.J. (for better or worse there is no B.J.J. in our neighborhood.)

I think it would be fun to put on some gloves (that you can grab with) and go for it...kick, punch, throw, pin, etc., all for the fun of it. - but thats just me.

Try it out, see what you think...there may be a valid reason for holding off a few kyus before you do start to cross train...easier on you as far as learning is concerned.

As for who is the toughest - no one...its all a game, have fun. ;)

Peace

dAlen

Kevin Leavitt
04-23-2009, 06:01 PM
I think what everyone is missing is that it isn't the art that is good or bad. All martial arts have merit and are efective. All martial arts have changed over the years simply because combat is no longer what it used to be. Whether a martial art is effective or not comes down to the individual.

Sorry to be contrary, but I disagree. There are many folks out there that are doing alot of stuff that they simply have no clue about what they are doing. They are doing alot of stuff wrong. They apply the wrong training methods, and honestly believe they are teaching folks something of value when they have no real idea or qualification about what they are doing.

They could be actually teaching methods that even appear to be good on the surface, but they comprehensively have no conceptual idea about how to synthesize it properly.

It's like having a headache and giving someone an aspriin and it works one time and then declaring yourself an doctor or an expert in medicine. Sure giving an aspirin or even a massage to a person might alleviate an headache...sometimes, but that doesn't make you an comprehensive expert in solving headaches! it simply worked that time.

Unfortunately, I think we approach martial arts many times this way. We have folks that train in something that works sometimes, or appears to work and then they do it for a while, then hang out a shingle and call themselves "Sensei".

I am sorry, but "martial artist" , martial arts and "fighting" are big words that have a bunch of meaning and varioius folks have various criteria upon which to judge "effecitveness" or "endstates" off of. However, in reality, the criteria for measuring the effectiveness or endstates is defined in "emotional" and "conceptual" terms...and not in really quantitative terms.

What we have alot of are snake oil salesman calling themselves Sensei unfortunately.

hope this makes some sense...It is late, and I am jet lagged still!

Kevin Leavitt
04-23-2009, 06:12 PM
Well since your asking for opinions... :D

Personally Im into the idea of mixing Thai Boxing with Aikido...as well as B.J.J. (for better or worse there is no B.J.J. in our neighborhood.)

I think it would be fun to put on some gloves (that you can grab with) and go for it...kick, punch, throw, pin, etc., all for the fun of it. - but thats just me.

Try it out, see what you think...there may be a valid reason for holding off a few kyus before you do start to cross train...easier on you as far as learning is concerned.

As for who is the toughest - no one...its all a game, have fun. ;)

Peace

dAlen

yeah but for many of us out there it really is not a game and is not about fun.

I mean why stand around and poke at each other with gloves "just to see what happens"?

Yeah I agree you kinda start getting some "experiences" out of it...but really do you think about the focus of why you want to do this and what the training point you are trying to accomplish?

I think there is merit at putting on some gloves...to protect uke for example if you goal is to put "combative pressure" on someone to train there ability to deal with strikes and punches while achieving a clinch or regaining dominance.

I see very little value in dancing around the ring trading punches back and forth ala boxing style unless you are training to be a boxer and you are working within the parameters of those rules.

This kinda goes with my crazy post above about endstates and crtieria? what is it that you are really trying to achieve with that training?

I think it is important to define the objectives and develop scenarios and constraints to test those objectives and to do it in a safe manner, then assess how it worked out.

I see little value in "trying it out for fun just to see what happens!" Cause what happens alot of the time is that you form a judgement or reach a false conclusion about what really happened in the experiment.....

We have had whole martial arts formed around such bogus conclusions and you end up with people dancing around doing a bunch of crazy looking and weird stuff.

CNYMike
04-23-2009, 09:57 PM
I think what everyone is missing is that it isn't the art that is good or bad. All martial arts have merit and are efective ..... Whether a martial art is effective or not comes down to the individual.

AMEN!

Reuben
04-24-2009, 04:09 AM
Well since your asking for opinions... :D

Personally Im into the idea of mixing Thai Boxing with Aikido...as well as B.J.J. (for better or worse there is no B.J.J. in our neighborhood.)

I think it would be fun to put on some gloves (that you can grab with) and go for it...kick, punch, throw, pin, etc., all for the fun of it. - but thats just me.

Try it out, see what you think...there may be a valid reason for holding off a few kyus before you do start to cross train...easier on you as far as learning is concerned.

As for who is the toughest - no one...its all a game, have fun. ;)

Peace

dAlen

Anyway I've been training Aikido for quite a few years and have started training in other martial arts.

Right now, I find limited integration potential between Aikido and the arts that I am taking up (CMD and BJJ).

In CMD:
The stance is all different, the weight distribution is different and the strategy is different. Plus you wear gloves most of the time. The whole platform is different and it's hard to integrate.

I do find that CMD through its sparring environment gives me a lot of perception when being attacked as in i can read moves better and am more prepared for unexpected, quick attacks which I think is invaluable.


In BJJ;
Similarly, the Aikido I have learnt does not involve any ground fighting whatsoever.

I believe this should be the same in most cases. I notice that my balance is a lot better and I'm not as easily taken down but that's as far as it goes as it's a completely different set of techniques. I also notice that for my size, I am considered pretty 'strong' due to the techniques in centralization I have picked up in Aikido. My hands aren't easily bent and I can drive my weight into more techniques.

BJJ does have more integration potential due to you having that added ability to fight on the ground should you wish to take it there.

Erick Mead
04-24-2009, 08:29 AM
yeah but for many of us out there it really is not a game and is not about fun. Even for those of us for whom active combat is no longer a recurring activity, it is not honest to the nature of the thing to make it purely play -- even if it may be play-ful...

I think it is important to define the objectives and develop scenarios and constraints to test those objectives and to do it in a safe manner, then assess how it worked out.

I see little value in "trying it out for fun just to see what happens!" Cause what happens alot of the time is that you form a judgement or reach a false conclusion about what really happened in the experiment.....

We have had whole martial arts formed around such bogus conclusions and you end up with people dancing around doing a bunch of crazy looking and weird stuff.

The measure I was taught of understanding a weapon is whether you could break it down to it lowest components rebuild it and then deploy it successfully - with your eyes closed -- or don't they still do that in ye olde Armee ? ;) Marines still do and they trained us naval aviators back in the day.

I approach nearly every class that way -- I start with something, tear it apart and then work on a piece or pieces in succession showing how to rebuild it into a coherent working whole. That way no matter what initial reaction to a given attack comes out spontaneously from a student's training he knows there is a coherent path to completion of the engagement -- even though he cannot see it directly, and it does not go in a straight line.

That is not to say that different weapons or arts do not work as effectively as others, or that they are not inherently related and equally deployable by a well-trained user of another, technically quite different weapon. But in teaching a weapon in depth it does not help to initially have a table of mixed M-16 and Kalashnikov parts to sort through with a blindfold on ... An interesting and possibly useful exercise, yes, but only after one has already learned to breakdown and rebuild both separately, and knows the nature of the different parts intimately in isolation.

philippe willaume
04-24-2009, 12:03 PM
I have noticed that many sensei's i have trained wih are also dan grades in many different martial arts, including jui-jitsu, hapkido, ninjitsu and others (in one case krav maga).

I would love to start doing other martial arts but dont have the time.

I would like to hear peoples thoughts on 'mixed martial arts' as i were :P

Mark.
Well
Not duplicate kev post but I really depends what you want to do with it.
If it is MMA that you are after MT or kick boxing and judo, BJJ, CACC, sambo will do the trick nicey.

If is lets say medieval martial art, you need punching kicking and a standing grappling art (aikido, JJ) and a look at BJJ is you are interested in wrestling in armour.

Now to be honest, a punch is a punch regardless of the art.
Before the term jab was coined people were executing a quick straight strike from the lead hand.
What is called ippon seionage, is a Bain Bruch (member breaker) in med martial arts, and a variation of shiho nague in the aikido I practice.

The hardest part in mixing things, it to get everything to work together, thanks to MMA it is a bit easier but whatever you pick you need to understand the scope and the paradigm of what that particular art is and translate that into whatever you want to achieve.
Ie back mount is good in BJJ but not that great in ground armoured wrestling.

Not to mention finding a version of the said arts that actually does what it says on the tin.

phil

Lyle Laizure
04-24-2009, 09:20 PM
Sorry to be contrary, but I disagree. There are many folks out there that are doing alot of stuff that they simply have no clue about what they are doing. They are doing alot of stuff wrong. They apply the wrong training methods, and honestly believe they are teaching folks something of value when they have no real idea or qualification about what they are doing.

They could be actually teaching methods that even appear to be good on the surface, but they comprehensively have no conceptual idea about how to synthesize it properly.

It's like having a headache and giving someone an aspriin and it works one time and then declaring yourself an doctor or an expert in medicine. Sure giving an aspirin or even a massage to a person might alleviate an headache...sometimes, but that doesn't make you an comprehensive expert in solving headaches! it simply worked that time.

Unfortunately, I think we approach martial arts many times this way. We have folks that train in something that works sometimes, or appears to work and then they do it for a while, then hang out a shingle and call themselves "Sensei".

I am sorry, but "martial artist" , martial arts and "fighting" are big words that have a bunch of meaning and varioius folks have various criteria upon which to judge "effecitveness" or "endstates" off of. However, in reality, the criteria for measuring the effectiveness or endstates is defined in "emotional" and "conceptual" terms...and not in really quantitative terms.

What we have alot of are snake oil salesman calling themselves Sensei unfortunately.



I still beleive it comes down to the individual. That being said I don't disagree that there are snake oil salesmen out there but they exsist for different reasons than this thread's existence. My point is only that a good/quality instructor that teaches his students and the material he teaches is of good quality then it comes down to the individual. Whether are martial art works or not will come down to the individual using it, his/her mentality. There has to be physical skill but all the skill in the world means nothing if you do not have the mental capability to apply the technique in the manner it needs to be applied.

dalen7
04-28-2009, 04:07 PM
yeah but for many of us out there it really is not a game and is not about fun.

I mean why stand around and poke at each other with gloves "just to see what happens"?

Yeah I agree you kinda start getting some "experiences" out of it...but really do you think about the focus of why you want to do this and what the training point you are trying to accomplish?

I think there is merit at putting on some gloves...to protect uke for example if you goal is to put "combative pressure" on someone to train there ability to deal with strikes and punches while achieving a clinch or regaining dominance.

I see very little value in dancing around the ring trading punches back and forth ala boxing style unless you are training to be a boxer and you are working within the parameters of those rules.

This kinda goes with my crazy post above about endstates and crtieria? what is it that you are really trying to achieve with that training?

I think it is important to define the objectives and develop scenarios and constraints to test those objectives and to do it in a safe manner, then assess how it worked out.

I see little value in "trying it out for fun just to see what happens!" Cause what happens alot of the time is that you form a judgement or reach a false conclusion about what really happened in the experiment.....

We have had whole martial arts formed around such bogus conclusions and you end up with people dancing around doing a bunch of crazy looking and weird stuff.

Yeah, thats the great thing about it though...people finding what fits them best...things change like the tides of the ocean, and everyone finds what fits them at the time.

At the present moment I would like to just have some fun and add some punches and kicks. When I was growing up, out in the backwood middle of nowhere, me and the neighbor kids used to take off our shoes and kick box...minus the punching. Solid kicks to anyplace but the face and groin, and we had fun...no one got hurt.

Horse play, I suppose you could call it, and when you start getting good at something like aikido, it becomes more like a chess match. lol

Anyway...who knows, energy flows differently...one moment something is cool that wont be cool later down the road. ;)

peace

dAlen

p.s.
I will add, Im training in Aikido to learn how to fight so I dont have to fight...which might sound contrary to what is stated above...and another irony is in the process learning I dont have to learn to fight in order not to fight.
A fight comes out of the state of mind of both parties in their egos. Now as for what Im talking about, its more for the sport of it...or even horseplay if thats a better term - as I dont believe you can really define by sport who is 'better'. Each person has their up days and down days.... :)

p.s.s.
Scary still is that I want to potentially teach aikido one day. ;)

dalen7
04-28-2009, 04:26 PM
Right now, I find limited integration potential between Aikido and the arts that I am taking up (CMD and BJJ).

This is kind of where I was going, maybe this will clarify it a bit.
Today is a good example as we used fist and elbows in atemi for a couple of our moves...of course we could not go all out as we did not have protective gear, so its a simulation, I suppose you could say. (Hypothetical situation.)

Now the aikido we do stands on its own without the atemi, but it would be nice to play around with it to see it in 'action', yet with safety...hence the pads and fingerless gloves. (Though I suppose you need to be careful with eye jabs. :)

What would be cool is learning all of this real time with the atemi, and then going for it with uke doing atemi, etc. and you relying soley on Aikido techniques. Again fun to play around with the puzzle, as it were... :)

Im actually starting to like Aikido - took 2 years. lol

Peace

dAlen

Kevin Leavitt
04-28-2009, 05:40 PM
Even for those of us for whom active combat is no longer a recurring activity, it is not honest to the nature of the thing to make it purely play -- even if it may be play-ful...

The measure I was taught of understanding a weapon is whether you could break it down to it lowest components rebuild it and then deploy it successfully - with your eyes closed -- or don't they still do that in ye olde Armee ? ;) Marines still do and they trained us naval aviators back in the day.

I approach nearly every class that way -- I start with something, tear it apart and then work on a piece or pieces in succession showing how to rebuild it into a coherent working whole. That way no matter what initial reaction to a given attack comes out spontaneously from a student's training he knows there is a coherent path to completion of the engagement -- even though he cannot see it directly, and it does not go in a straight line.

That is not to say that different weapons or arts do not work as effectively as others, or that they are not inherently related and equally deployable by a well-trained user of another, technically quite different weapon. But in teaching a weapon in depth it does not help to initially have a table of mixed M-16 and Kalashnikov parts to sort through with a blindfold on ... An interesting and possibly useful exercise, yes, but only after one has already learned to breakdown and rebuild both separately, and knows the nature of the different parts intimately in isolation.

Hey Erick, missed your post while I am traveling so much these days!

I agree with your breaking it down example. It is important to study something indepth as your example of breaking down a weapon etc. However, I think it is important to focus on why you are breaking that weapon down, which is to clean it, repair it, and make it functional.

However, if you goal is to be an expert at shooting, you simply ned to practice shooting and the skill sets that go along with shooting.

I think this gets left out alot in our practices. I know the army did for years. It left out "Aliveness" in shooting for many, many years. We are now back to instilling aliveness in shooting.

For example, yes, in the old days you would breakdown the weapon, and maybe even the drill seargeant would have you learn all the trivia that went along with each piece..that is all good and fine, but it does not make you a good combat shooter.

Then we would go out to a static range and do marksmanship training in the prone, standing, kneeling postition while "safety NCO's" made sure we pointed the weapon down range and picked up the weapon when they said so, and then put it back down, on safe etc when they said so.

You then shot your target and hopefully got like 38 o 40 out of 40, qualified "expert" and that was the extent of your training.

Well that did not make for a good combat shooter.

So, if you have time, you can skip the whole learn the weapon indepth part and start teaching reflexive fire, moving as a unit under fire, close quarters battle stuff, and making guys responsible for the safety of their weapon as they freely move around the range in a disciplined, but alive manner.

Cause this is what we really want. Guys that can fire weapons under pressure and can not have an accidental discharge in the FOB when they are tired and forgetful....not that they studied the weapon indepth and know all the names of the parts and can get 40 out of 40 on 300M on a static (dead) range.

So, yes, I agree that an in depth study is good I think, as long as we are training the right things for the right reasons. Training should be integrative, scalable, adaptable, and "nested" to produce a desired goal/endstate/or whatever you want to call it.

And it does need to be broken down and it is important to study theory. (BTW, we spend some time teaching about the effects of wind, velocity, trajectory and all that other good stuff you need to understand when dealing with marksmanship). However, everything has to be weighted against the time you have to train, so while theory and background is important...there are other things, such as actually firing the weapon in the right conditions that will always outweigh or have a higer priority than theory.

I think that many of us in the martial arts look at mastery simply for the sake of mastery and that is how we approach our training. We tend to study a few paths, which I think can be very narrow, very indepth at the expense of "competence".

It is like learning to play chess by studying one chess piece and all the potential moves for that piece before moving on to the next one or ever playing a game before you master each piece!

Aliveness with equate to actually playing chess and learning by making mistakes and gaining a breadth of experience. You may even "cross train" by playing other similar games that tax your mind and ability to formulate and extrapolate strategy.

The guy that studies and masters each piece may do that for 10 years before actually playing the game. Yes, he can tell you much more than anyone else about all the potential moves that can be made. I would bet though, that a "hack" that had simply learned through "aliveness" in 2 years would beat him.

It seems silly I think, but many of us approach our martial training with that same mindset.

In another post you commented that it would be like trying to learn Urdu, French and English at the same time (cross training). I don't think it is quite the same. Sure all are languages, but I think that the difference between BJJ, Aikido, and Judo are more in line with British English, Australian English, and American English...variations on the same theme. By studying those three dialects, you can still talk in the basic form, but you learn some new phrases and get exposed to other options.

With three arts like BJJ, Aikido, and Judo you are doing the same. The methodologies are distinct enough that they actually allow you to practice Aiki Indepth, Throws and Standing Kuzushi indepth, and Ne Waza indepth.

If you do it right, you can apply a model of aliveness that can tie the whole package together.

It is like teaching reflexive fire drills, how to do "SPORTS", and 300M range. All are three separate and distinct "systems" or methods of shooting a weapons...but all tie together to produce a "combat shooter".

to be honest, it would be nice to have full time access to an instructor like Toby Threadgill, Sensei. I think he is probably more an anomaly though than a commonality.

Short of that, many of us are left with fending for ourselves to come up with a practice that is integrative, adaptable, alive and all that good stuff!

Arashi Kumomura
05-10-2009, 05:21 AM
I knew little about Aikido when I started training and had I researched it before joining my dojo, I may have reconsidered and taken another martial art, not because I didn't have any faith in Aikido, but because I felt that I was built more for something else. I am unspeakable thankful I ended up learning about this martial art first-hand and realizing how enlightening and enjoyable it is. Also, I discovered that I would have been wrong if I thought that this martial art wasn't for me.

I don't know whether you would consider it to be "integrating Aikido with another martial art," but if I was hypothetically faced with an affrontation, I believe that I would rely on quick strikes followed by either greater strikes or a throw/pin (depending on the situation). I know Aikido uses strikes (atemi), but I think that I would use them a bit more, mainly because I'm not completely confident in my ability to restrain someone by solely relying on my Aikido.

So, I would probably use more strikes than called for in Aikido, but ultimately restrain via Aikido pin or throw or something.

Also, however, since I've had no formal training in another martial art, I don't really think you could call what I'm doing "integrating" as much as using sloppy Aikido. :P
(I could be wrong about all of this, but this is what I believe my actions to be.)

Tim Ruijs
05-12-2009, 02:34 AM
Hi all

The original poster mentioned a lack of faith in Aikido when push comes to shove. I think this is where problem starts. First of all there are many different styles of Aikido, which I will not get into :D
Second within a style many teachers practise, some good, some bad. Not getting into this one at all :)

These points aside, the question is why do you practise Aikido?
You can win a fight without having to fight. This is what Aikido is about. Aikido is offensive, but not (necessarily) destructive. It sure is not defensive, (allthough you can defend yourself).

Paul Jagdman
05-12-2009, 04:54 PM
It seems to me that if someone chooses to specialize in Aikido, it is not necessary to get training in a striking art, such as Karate, with the aim of improving one's striking power. This is because the atemi waza of Aikido (i.e. its striking techniques) are not intended to knock out or seriously hurt an assailant to stop a fight. The atemi are used to confuse and aid in unbalancing the attacker. At the most, Karate or Kung Fu lessons might allow the Aikidoka get some insight into the mind of the striker and the logic of the striker's gameplan, that he otherwise woundn' t have exposure to.

However, it the variant of Aikido has no ground fighting techniques, then the Aikidoka should get some cross-training in a grappling art, such as Judo or some kind of Ju-jutsu. No martial art can guarantee that its practitioners will become infallible. If an Aikidoka selects the wrong technique for defense against an attack, or his timing is off, he or she may wind up on the ground with the assailant in a horizontal position. In this situation, grappling techniques would be essential. The reason why Judo has ground techniques is that Kano's Kodokan Judo school, which originally put no emphasis on ground techniques, was challenged by a rival jujutsu school, which specialized in ground work. When the rival school outperformed the Kodokan in a tournament because of this difference, Kano was forced to realize that ground techniques had to be integrated into Judo. This is why Tomiki Aikido has ground techniques. Sensei Tomiki had been a student of Kano.

ninjaqutie
05-12-2009, 05:56 PM
I studied aikijitsu for 8 years and now I am doing aikido. In my case, the two blend extremely well, but I also did tang soo do for a short time when it was offered at my college. The teacher quit... boo. Anywho, I say train in one until you get a base knowledge. By base knowledge, I don't mean a month, two months, or even a year. It takes a while to build a foundation. Then you can try branching out. I find that each style is it's own and I don't really blend one into the other when I am in one class. It is nice to notice what you could do from your other style though.

Each style has a strength and a weakness. By training in a couple styles over time, you will help fill one style's gap with the other's strength. Of course, this is just my hooplah of an opinion. HAHA.

Ron Tisdale
05-13-2009, 07:59 AM
This is because the atemi waza of Aikido (i.e. its striking techniques) are not intended to knock out or seriously hurt an assailant to stop a fight.

Sorry, but I disagree. Ueshiba Sensei broke a judoka's hip with an atemi. To me, that is a fight ender. I also believe that the same basic power that is supposed to be behind the striking in those other arts should be in aikido (though often used differently). I also think it is very valuable to at least understand and be able to use (even at a low level) the mechanics that different styles use to release power.

There are often situations where the natural conclusion is going to be...atemi. I personally see no contradiction in that with aikido. Whether or not it is someone's preferred method is something else entirely.

Best,
Ron

mevensen
05-13-2009, 10:05 AM
I am just starting training in Aikido (about 1 month now) after 4 years in mantis kung fu and previous experience in another style of kung fu (northern shaolin), hwa rang do, and tang soo do (going back on and off about 25 years).

Mantis has been my most serious commitment to a style to date, occupying my last four years, also the only style I ranked to black belt(sash).

I have found the introduction of Aikido to be pretty challenging at some points, such that I find myself getting corrected consistently by sensei/sempai because of the differences. To name a few of the things I have noted to be significant differences:

mindset - of course, the more aggressive and striking nature of mantis
ma-ai is very different - in mantis, the ranges are all different, having someone at arm's length is undesirable, trapping an opponent's center can be crucial to controlling it
stance work and rooting are different, or at least feel very different right now
power generation seems to come from larger body movements in aikido, and not as much from what we called "silk reeling energy"
the reaction to a strike is very different - while mantis does have some of the larger evasive movements, many evasions and yielding comes from smaller movements in the hips without significant foot movement. Actually, some of the reading/reaction to certain attacking movements have very different interpretations (in my limited exposure to Aikido).


Having listed these, I can see how the two may come to complement each other, but I also see how they may contradict.

My sensei mentioned that a big difference between Aikido and many other arts is the idea of the sword. I can see that as true, many reactions in kung fu would not be appropriate against a sword, since one is not moving off the line of attack enough. That creates a big difference between overall body movements and positioning between the arts.

Ron Tisdale
05-13-2009, 10:46 AM
Sure, from my limited exposure to a chinese art (probably very bastardized at that) I can see all of those items standing out as you begin your training.

As time goes on, hopefully you will see your movements in aikido get smaller and smaller, you will find opportunities for the silk reeling and grounding, and other things may become more apparent as well. Just like you got deeper and deeper in your other style as time went on, you should expect the same from aikido.

Please note that I was also specifically referring to the root of power generation...not tactics, strategy, etc.

Best,
Ron

Lyle Bogin
07-22-2009, 12:47 PM
I prefer to study other arts without trying to integrate. Then the points of integration occur on their own and aren't forced. I suppose this is a reaction to my initial study of aikido, when trying to use what I already knew just got in the way.

ninjaqutie
07-22-2009, 01:10 PM
Lyle, I think you make a good point. I would keep the two seperate at least at first. Eventually, a light bulb will click and you will have one of those AHAH moments. I know one of my sempais was trying to correct me on something (I was pulling him straight towards me instead of getting off the line - typical beginner mistake). He decided to crowd me. For some reason, I didn't feel threatened at all. Instead, I turned my back towards him and bent down as if to load him on my hips. I didn't do this, but I surprised myself by going "OH YEAH.... this is a throw from my previous style" I don't think it is something that should be forced. It just sort of happens as with everything else in aikido. Just my opinion though. :)

lita hayata
08-03-2009, 12:52 PM
I’ve returned to Aikido after a long break, and there is an interesting Karate group forming where I work.

The thing is, at the dojo there are some great friends around 3kyu and 2kyu that also graduated from Karate, and even as a 4kyu I can feel they are “stiffer” than most of the others and don’t usually relax when they’re taken down and receive arm locks.
Is that a “contribution” from Karate? Do you think that, even if I’m aware of the differences and don’t want to mix anything, training it will have an influence at my moves, and maybe become strong, precise and.. stiff when training Aikido?

Thank you.

ninjaqutie
08-03-2009, 04:06 PM
Some people are just naturally stiffer. It could be a bi-product of their karate, but it could also just be their body type.

Honestly, training in anything different will have an impact on your moves. Whether it is big or small, good or bad, it will change things. Chances are though, that your aikido experience will help you keep your ability to blend and yield better.

PeterR
08-03-2009, 09:43 PM
This is why Tomiki Aikido has ground techniques. Sensei Tomiki had been a student of Kano.

Where does this idea come from. If anything Tomiki Aikido has less emphasisis on ground techniques - if you call suwariwaza ground techniques - then many other styles of Aikido. I actually don't consider suwariwaza ground techniques but I digress.

When Tomiki taught and trained he kept Judo and Aikido quite separate. A lot of his students and their students train in both (some with other combinations of art) but there is Aikido practice and Judo practice. The respective randori is designed to improve each in its own right. Integration happens naturally especially when you consider that Aikido happens while you close the distance whereas Judo is what happens when you get there.

Oh you can have fun with the integration. At the Himeji dojo during randori, it was not unheard of for people to just keep going if both went to ground. But that really was outside the system practice.

wideawakedreamer
08-04-2009, 12:26 AM
It seems to me that if someone chooses to specialize in Aikido, it is not necessary to get training in a striking art, such as Karate, with the aim of improving one's striking power.

^ I agree with this part about not having to train in a striking art, however I still practice from time to time at home on the heavy bag to improve my power.

This is because the atemi waza of Aikido (i.e. its striking techniques) are not intended to knock out or seriously hurt an assailant to stop a fight. The atemi are used to confuse and aid in unbalancing the attacker.

Yes, the atemi are used to confuse and aid in unbalancing the attacker, but I don't think simply flicking my hand at his face with the hope of making him flinch is the way to do this. In order for the atemi to really make him react I have to make him believe the atemi is going to hurt - which means my strike should have enough power behind it to knock out or hurt the opponent. If it knocks him out then the fight is over and I can walk away. If it doesn't knock him out but hurts him, that still helps confuse and aid in unbalancing him while I follow up with either another strike or a throw.

And if it doesn't connect it will be because he saw it coming and knew it would hurt and therefore reacted the way I wanted him to.