PDA

View Full Version : Aikido or Judo, which is more martial?


Please visit our sponsor:
 

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


aikishrine
04-22-2009, 08:44 PM
I was wondering of those of you who have or still do train in both arts, which one do you find more martial?

Ketsan
04-22-2009, 10:59 PM
I was wondering of those of you who have or still do train in both arts, which one do you find more martial?

Aikido, easily. Aikido on the other hand is life and death and about how you live. On the other hand there's no attempt in Judo to think about anything outside of shiai. What happens if you chuck an Aikidoka on his back? He get's up and hits you. If you chuck a Judoka on his back it's an ippon and the match is over. There's a vastly different mentality there.

Amir Krause
04-23-2009, 02:48 AM
Funny

Myself, who train Aikido for a long time (Yondasha ranks) only trained Judo as a chiled for less then 1 year. Always have lots of respect for the Martial aspects of Judo.

A friend, who trained Judo for lots of years (until Kyu 1) and joined Aikido after I transmited the bug to. Keeps telling me how our Aikido is so much more martial then Judo.

Each of us knows first hand the problems with the methodology of the M.A. he trained for long, and so, the neighbours yard looks so much better.
:)

Amir

James Edwards
04-23-2009, 06:37 AM
2 martial arts, different approach I guess.

In judo you have resistance but no atemi, in aikido it's less resistance but so much possibility for atemi.

It's really quite hard to judge. It probably boils down to the training nature if you have to judge. In judo there is competition, but there are rules to competition. In aikido there is for and no competition but the aikidoka is more free to apply more martial variations of techniques in case it is needed.

I would say some styles of aikido are more martial but I'm biased right?

NagaBaba
04-23-2009, 10:12 AM
I was wondering of those of you who have or still do train in both arts, which one do you find more martial?
Judo, without any doubt.

Ron Tisdale
04-23-2009, 10:17 AM
Judo for basics to build a platform for the everything else. Still regret not doing judo for any substantial period of time.

If you have a good base, aikido becomes so much more.

Best,
Ron

Aikibu
04-23-2009, 10:33 AM
More Martial??? That's up to you really...

I have practiced both... Judo for 20 years and now Aikido for over 20 and there appears to be no difference to me. :)

William Hazen

Anjisan
04-23-2009, 10:56 AM
:) I have only practiced Aikido, Karate (American kickboxing and traditional) and BJJ, but it seems to me that Aikido would be. Specifically, I think that training to deal with multiple attackers is an advantage for Aikido (which I go round and round with the BJJ crowd with--it is more of a mano y mano art like Judo) and I am unsure how judo deals with kicks and punches as well as strikes overall.

Doesn't most training being from a clinch??? I am sure that there are Judo instructors who address these issues, it just doesn't seem like it would be the norm at judo dojos since competition is the larger goal. I mean, the Japanese police (riot police) usually learn aikido/ aikijutsu as opposed to judo do they not??? Finally, did Master Kano send his most senior student/s to train with Osensei? More than Aikido just being a new novelty on the martial arts landscape I would like to believe he too saw the martial potential of Aikido.

phitruong
04-23-2009, 10:56 AM
i am still trying to figure out what is "martial"? if it meant being able to inflict damages, then I'll vote for the sidewalk. the other day, a sidewalk jumped out and smacked the living daylight out of me; while the bushes laughed and said "my turn next". :)

wonder if there is a kwoncrete-do or bush-es-do. :D

Beard of Chuck Norris
04-23-2009, 11:04 AM
Didn't Kano himself say that Judo wasn't really a martial art but a physical system?

Flintstone
04-23-2009, 12:10 PM
ĦAikido and Judo are one and the same!

Aikibu
04-23-2009, 12:15 PM
Didn't Kano himself say that Judo wasn't really a martial art but a physical system?

Yup...so when someone asks like "Which is more Martial" I like to ask them what they mean by Martial.

Both Aikido and Judo are Gendai "Arts" and have a different "approach" to "Martial" than The Koryu Arts they originated from...

WIlliam Hazen

Kevin Leavitt
04-23-2009, 06:29 PM
neither as they are both DO arts (methodologies based on jiujitsu) that have as a primary endstate character, spiritual or personal growth objectives...based on a martial system, as such, they are concerned holisitcally with development.

That said, they are both great warrior methodologies to produce effective warriors if training is approached the right way.

Not really a question that you can answer. it's like saying which is better a phillips head screw driver or a flat head?

PeterR
04-23-2009, 11:39 PM
Well a judoka is more likely to make what he talks about work where a Aikidoist will often just talk. Until you can demonstrate that you can even make a portion of what you do work under trying circumstance all this life and death posturing is just that.

I'll put my pennies with Judo any day.

Chuck Clark
04-23-2009, 11:53 PM
Then there are those of us that do both and see little difference... waza fits the need and "jutsu" is efficiency and "do" is the way of life. They can be both sides of the same thing. The kokoro of the person is what can be martial when needed and create the right tool.

Greetings Peter... long time, eh?

PeterR
04-24-2009, 01:38 AM
Then there are those of us that do both and see little difference... waza fits the need and "jutsu" is efficiency and "do" is the way of life. They can be both sides of the same thing. The kokoro of the person is what can be martial when needed and create the right tool.

Greetings Peter... long time, eh?

Agree. Stating the obvious but these questions/arguments often revolve around some pretty big assumptions about one art or the other. Usually the one not being practiced but also about ones own art.

Yeah - I've been hiding in China. Seems all the things I want to say on Aikiweb have already been said - so I lurk.

Actually gave a class back in Japan last week and may be setting up a club here in Shanghai relatively soon.

Hope all is well.

Aikibu
04-24-2009, 02:40 AM
Well a judoka is more likely to make what he talks about work where a Aikidoist will often just talk. Until you can demonstrate that you can even make a portion of what you do work under trying circumstance all this life and death posturing is just that.

I'll put my pennies with Judo any day.

I recognize Irony when I read it....;)

William Hazen

L. Camejo
04-24-2009, 03:36 AM
I was wondering of those of you who have or still do train in both arts, which one do you find more martial?What is your definition of martial? Each method has its pros and cons and both work well when one knows when to use which. The definition of what is "martial" is important since it determines the mindset that is required to express stated "martial-ness". Afaic someone with the correct mindset and knowledge can weaponize anything if they need to.

Just my 2 cents. Long time no see Peter.

LC

PeterR
04-24-2009, 03:58 AM
I recognize Irony when I read it....;)

William Hazen

Not really - done a tad of Judo here and there also.

Ron Tisdale
04-24-2009, 07:17 AM
Hey Peter! Just a tad, right? :D (In a pigs eye...)

Best,
Ron (good reading you again, Nei hau ma?)

aikishrine
04-24-2009, 08:12 AM
I didnt mean to start a "what art is better" discussion. I was just curious to know what peoples opinions were on which art they thought was more street effective. I believe that both have good and bad points. For instance i think that Aikido has a lot of great throws, but its suwari waza has little or no positive application to a street situation. Where as Judo ground fighting has some good street applications in a one on one situation but not for multiple attackers. As far as Judo throws there are some great hand, hip, and shoulder throws but i think that the foot sweeps are of little use IMHO.

Please keep the feedback coming.

Flintstone
04-24-2009, 08:16 AM
[...] but i think that the foot sweeps are of little use IMHO.
I cannot buy that.

Ron Tisdale
04-24-2009, 08:45 AM
Neither can I. Foot sweeps are great setups for off-balancing prior to other throws, even if they don't cause a throw on their own, and they often do.

I believe some of the Nisei judoka used to practice kicking a tire around a field to practice their sweeps. Now imagine someone used to doing that grabbing you, pushing you around, and sweeping your feet that hard.

Can you say OUCH?
B,
R

NagaBaba
04-24-2009, 10:06 AM
Neither can I. Foot sweeps are great setups for off-balancing prior to other throws, even if they don't cause a throw on their own, and they often do.

I believe some of the Nisei judoka used to practice kicking a tire around a field to practice their sweeps. Now imagine someone used to doing that grabbing you, pushing you around, and sweeping your feet that hard.

Can you say OUCH?
B,
R
Hi Ron,
A tire? :eek: The tires are for children. The Real Judo Fighter practice sweeps on tree trunk or elecrical pillar. :cool: < - it is not a joke.

Hi Peter, long way from Quebec to China, very impressive!

NagaBaba
04-24-2009, 10:13 AM
Then there are those of us that do both and see little difference... waza fits the need and "jutsu" is efficiency and "do" is the way of life. They can be both sides of the same thing. The kokoro of the person is what can be martial when needed and create the right tool.

Greetings Peter... long time, eh?

The only thing Chuck, that a fresh beginner will learn this kind of spirit much faster with right judo instructor then in aikido.
And I agree with Peter, most aikidoka only talk.

Chuck Clark
04-24-2009, 10:23 AM
A few instances in my "youth" involving very aggressive punch/kick fellows ended quickly when the world turns upside down very quickly and they hit the hard surface in dramatic fashion. One fellow that made the mistake of not growing up learning ukemi and proper falling sustained a hip fracture. Boxers don't think about learning to fall. If you're proficient at ashi waza, they really work.

Peter, things continue to happen and I have survived. I'm living in the Pacific Northwest now and am glad to get out of the heat. Keep in touch.

Hi Szczepan, I heard a long time ago that the hardest and most important thing about budo practice is finding the right teacher. I think it's true.

Aikibu
04-24-2009, 11:19 AM
The only thing Chuck, that a fresh beginner will learn this kind of spirit much faster with right judo instructor then in aikido.
And I agree with Peter, most aikidoka only talk.

More Irony...with a "little apples and oranges" fallacy thrown in...

Most Aikidoka and Judoka do not post on message boards They're too busy practicing and living thier lives...

Some of us however love to post....LOL :D

Kano Shihan knew the differance by the way...

William Hazen

Ron Tisdale
04-24-2009, 11:43 AM
Hi Ron,
A tire? :eek: The tires are for children. The Real Judo Fighter practice sweeps on tree trunk or elecrical pillar. :cool: < - it is not a joke.

Not much different from Thai boxers, neh? Used to do a bit of that myself in my back yard. :D <-- it is not a joke...

mathewjgano
04-24-2009, 04:21 PM
Well a judoka is more likely to make what he talks about work where a Aikidoist will often just talk.


Hi Peter! I was just thinking how I missed your posts, et voila!
Why do you think this is the case (w/re: talking and making stuff work)?
Glad to see you're well!
Matt

DH
04-25-2009, 08:07 AM
I was wondering of those of you who have or still do train in both arts, which one do you find more martial?

Neither-though Judo could probably be adapted "back" into a martial art more readily.

Neither; were, are, or ever will be "martial" arts. They were never intended -to- be martial arts by their inventors. Both of whom knew the martial arts of Japan and cited in various texts that they wanted to remove-themselves-and change what they knew to differentiate it from the "martial" arts of Japan.
Aikido initially expressed a power so profound that Ueshiba could "stop" the martial arts of Japan. In this way it was considered superior too- but outside of- those interests. Unfortunately, most believe those abilities and that type of aikido to have ended with him.
So, why the interest in a martial art?
If you want to train in one- the martial arts of Japan are still taught in Japan and a few are now taught outside of Japan.
Or, train on both sides of the spectrum. Learn what they were and are and then learn the way of Aiki... to stop or neutralize them.
Cheers
Dan

georgejjr
04-25-2009, 12:33 PM
This thread was also asked on judoinfo.com. I'm not sure if the intention was to start an argument between aikido and judo enthusiasts, but the most common response there was that both neither judo or aikido are martial in any modern sense of the word (that would involve firearms, artillery, armor, air combat etc).

In fact, its kind of a strange question unless what was being asked was how well they worked for self-defense, and in the case of self-defense both seem to have worked quite well for many students.

James Wyatt
04-25-2009, 02:28 PM
Find the right teacher and they are both martial. Finding the right teacher is key and can be difficult.....

James

Phil Van Treese
04-30-2009, 10:30 AM
I have done judo and aikido my whole life---judo since I was 5 and aikido since I was 7. Which one is more martial depends on your point of view. Judo can fight standing or on the ground. Put a judoka on the ground and attack him. Chances are he'll be able to defend himself thru chokes, armbars, turnovers etc. Put an aikidoka on the ground and see what happens. I have yet to see an aikidoka lay on his back and do an Irimi nage or shiho nage. Aikido though is great for getting around an attacker and using their weight, force etc against them and cranking joint manipulation on them. Both arts have their good points and bad points but when put or used together, they would become 1 and what an awesome and formidable defense one would have then.

Flintstone
04-30-2009, 06:42 PM
I have yet to see an aikidoka lay on his back and do an Irimi nage or shiho nage.
But you're not confusing the art for the techniques, are you?

Phil Van Treese
05-01-2009, 03:16 PM
No, I'm not confusing the art for the technique. I am pointing out that each art has their advantages--like judo on the ground and aikido being able to get around an attacker easier. Short coming of aikido is that most aikidoka can't fight on the ground while on their back. In Tomiki Aikido we can. Judo has a hard time getting behind someone because there is a lot of head on confrontation. When used together, they are awesome.

NagaBaba
05-01-2009, 09:39 PM
Short coming of aikido is that most aikidoka can't fight on the ground while on their back.
Hello Phil,
Aikidoka can't fight at all. Aikido training is a cooperative training and doesn't teach fighting. Even if in Tomiki aikido you have some sort of sportive competition, it has nothing to do with fighting.Stop dreaming :D

DH
05-01-2009, 11:31 PM
Aiki has the potential to make Aikido one of the most poweful arts in the world, and to match Judo with ease.
Aiki is power.
If your aiki can't deliver this way-change teachers!

Dan

Walter Martindale
05-02-2009, 12:27 AM
.

Not really a question that you can answer. it's like saying which is better a phillips head screw driver or a flat head?

Robertson (square drive) :D

8 years judo, 15+years aikido. No street fighting experience.
Judo's benefits - training within the rules (no atemi, no face, and joint/submissions only on elbow and shime-waza) going quite hard at attack and defense - make one physically hard, ukemi skills pretty good. "martial" aspect a weakness is that you completely don't worry about possibility of other opponents - sole focus on one person. (story later)
Aikido benefits - train against strikes and attempts to control (grabs) and (some dojo) train against multiple attackers and weapons. Some dojo take more of an artsy approach, some dojo never "flow", and some dojo are actually dangerous to train at because they play close to the edge when they pick up speed. All depends on the sensei. I've been at all three types of aikido dojo and some in between (all Aikikai, supposedly). Where I am now, sensei is former karate, and very good at connecting weapon kata to aikido movements, and at demonstrating the openings for all kinds of atemi. One of my earlier dojo we learned all kinds of good stuff - how to put handcuffs on someone punching at you, how to retain the knife against an aikido person, how to retain a pistol (and how to take it away) - I wore a mouth guard for practice at that dojo, and needed it.

The single-attacker judo story - a champion judo athlete (retired international competitor) was in a boozer establishment in a city while attending university (I won't name the person, the street, or the city, but it did happen.). He ended up in an altercation with someone, and threw the other person to the pavement with a seoi-nage, and applied one of the juji-jime (crossed wrist strangulations) to the other fellow. The next thing he knew he had the tip of a knife appearing out of the front of his chest. Forgot to pay attention to the opponent's friends. Fortunately/luckily the knife missed lungs, aorta, ticker and vena-cavae - who knows how - but it seems to have slipped through without taking out any major blood vessels or organs. He recovered after a significant stay in the hospital. I THINK that an Aikido person would have handled the whole thing differently, and if a fight did happen, would most likely not have ignored the surrounding people/friends of his opponent. I for one would have done all I possibly could have to avoid a scrap, whereas before aikido, after judo, I may have waded in.

Which is more martial? Depends on the dojo.

Walter

Ketsan
05-02-2009, 11:35 AM
Aiki has the potential to make Aikido one of the most poweful arts in the world, and to match Judo with ease.
Aiki is power.
If your aiki can't deliver this way-change teachers!

Dan

I agree with you but I'd put it like this: "If you're not doing Aiki you're not doing Aikido, go and find an Aikido instructor."

That's what my instructor did.

Ketsan
05-02-2009, 11:38 AM
Hello Phil,
Aikidoka can't fight at all. Aikido training is a cooperative training and doesn't teach fighting. Even if in Tomiki aikido you have some sort of sportive competition, it has nothing to do with fighting.Stop dreaming :D

Aikidoka can fight very well, it's just that there aren't many people practicing Aikido.

James Wyatt
05-02-2009, 02:00 PM
There are no breakfalls in "real" aikido.

O'Sensei reportedly refused to demonstrate aikido to the Emperor as it would be a falsehood.

There are very good martial teachers of both judo and aikido. Each to their own as many do not want or wish to contemplate the real applications of proper technique.

georgejjr
05-02-2009, 02:07 PM
Interesting place, the internet. Log onto the forum for any discipline and you'll hear lots of stories proving that their art is the best, and giving numerous unverifiable examples of masters of other arts being defeated. Its always a bit surprising to step on the streets afterward and not have to pick your way through streets littered with the bodies of defeated proponents of inferior styles.

And yet, when you meet people from other styles in person, none of these unproven claims seem to arise, individuals don't claim that either they or their style is the best, and there's generally nothing but respect all around. I'm not sure if that's because people who really train can't be bothered to slag other styles and so the proclamations in question are made by beginners in the rush of enthusiasm for a new activity, or if the people who put down other styles are simply too cowardly to do it in person when they meet a disciple of a different style. The effect however is quite pronounced, and I suspect anyone who has done any martial discipline has noted it.

Phil Van Treese
05-04-2009, 01:35 PM
Well, Szczepan, you obviously are very ignorant in martial arts, esp. Aikido. I have used aikido in Viet Nam, Desert Storm and Mogadishu, Somalia and I am still here. You musn't have any fighting ability at all due to your ignorant statements. Just because you are incapable of defending yourself, don't judge others by your fighting shortcoming(s). You need to start over as a white belt and learn aikido.

NagaBaba
05-04-2009, 02:55 PM
Well, Szczepan, you obviously are very ignorant in martial arts, esp. Aikido. I have used aikido in Viet Nam, Desert Storm and Mogadishu, Somalia and I am still here. You musn't have any fighting ability at all due to your ignorant statements. Just because you are incapable of defending yourself, don't judge others by your fighting shortcoming(s). You need to start over as a white belt and learn aikido.
Hi Phil,
I'm obviously ignorant, indeed. :D
However, I don't believe that 1 milion of aikidoka can fight in Viet Nam, Desert Storm and Mogadishu, Somalia using skills learned in their respectif aikido dojo.At the time O sensei didn't teach how to fight in aikido and still today nobody teachs how to fight in aikido dojo.Right logic and common sens.

i.e.:
In contrary, 1 milion MMA students can fight in any place in the world with the techniques they learned during their training.It can happen for one simple reason - this guys learn how to fight and fight every class. Right logic and common sens.

Phil, it looks we disagree ;) Do you still believe you represent the army of fighting aikidoka? :p

Phil Van Treese
05-04-2009, 03:25 PM
I don't represent anyone but me. 1 million aikidoka don't have to fight in Viet Nam etc. I did and I am still here. I have been jumped here in Tampa also at an ATM. 3 against one and I walked away, unhurt. Aikido/Judo serve my purpose so it does work, for me. MMA can fight any where in the world too. It's not the art that's fighting, it's the person. They use what they have been taught and move the way they were taught to move. If MMA, Aikido, Judo or whatever serves your purpose and you can walk away, then it works for you regardless of what martial art was used.
By the way, "sens" is correctly spelled as sense.

Brion Toss
05-04-2009, 04:02 PM
Hello all,
That screwdriver analogy could actually prove valuable here. The Robertson square drive was developed in a direct response to an injury that Robertson suffered while demonstrating slotted tip screwdrivers. Those slotted screwdrivers have the advantage of being maximally simple, but they slip off the head of the screw too easily. So, basic, but of limited value, and prone to backfire.
Robertson decided he wanted to be in charge of every aspect of his invention, from manufacture through distribution. This worked for a while, and then he ran afoul of Henry Ford, who refused to play along. He instead wanted to license the manufacture of the screws from Robertson. Instead, he contracted with a guy named Phillips (you can look it up), whose screw heads weren't as slip-proof as the square drive, but were much better than slotted bits. In fact the Phillips proved better for the purpose, precisely because the bit would back out when the power tool used to drive the screw hit bottom; square drive bits, in those pre-clutch days, would have been more likely to snap the bit or the screw head. So Henry got cheaper screws that worked better, because in one sense they didn't work as well as the competition.
Now think of martial arts. It seems that some arts are slotted bits, powerful and simple, but of limited versatility, and thus easily taken off course. Boxing comes to mind. Then there are arts that can deal with anything, but which require a technical refinement and subtlety that most people either can't or won't work hard enough to get. If they stay with the art anyway, they'll only get a compromised version of what is possible. I think that Aikido is a square-drive art, (maybe even a Torqz) and that a lot of us are dealing with stripped heads, the wrong size bit, etc.
And then there are Phillips arts. These, despite apparent shortcomings, will get you down the road with less personal investment for a given amount of effectiveness, but they are still deeply versatile and martially valid. Judo, for instance.
This analogy will break down in a hurry if one includes the non-martial aspects and implications of each art, but for me it is clear that Aikido can give one the most to aspire to, the most to realize. But you really have to work for it.
Yours,
Brion

NagaBaba
05-04-2009, 04:12 PM
It's not the art that's fighting, it's the person. .
I agree, but if some system doesn't provide any tool to learn efficiently, event most gifted person can't learn too much.
And aikido teachning doesn't have such tools.

By the way, "sens" is correctly spelled as sense.
Be generous with me, English is my fourth language, will remember to use spell check. :)

Rabih Shanshiry
05-04-2009, 04:21 PM
I came across a relevant discussion in Gozo Shioda's "Aikido Shugyo" that seems germane to the topic at hand:

1. Shioda Kancho was a young, talented, and cocky Judoka who was skeptical of O Sensei's art. He thought it was fake...until he was invited to attack Ueshiba Sensei and discovered otherwise.

2. Three time All Japan Judo Champion Kimura Masahiko said to Shioda Kancho, "In terms of self-defence, Judo, which today has abandoned the use of atemi, has a lot to learn from Aikido."

Shioda Sensei held that the sporting aspect of Judo and other martial arts adapted for competition diluted their martial nature.

Rabih Shanshiry
05-04-2009, 04:26 PM
Szczepan,

Your arguments are a bit confusing given your own background as a yondan and USAF instructor. I'm not sure if you are just yanking our chains or if you sincerely believe that Aikido has no practical application as a fighting art.

Could you please explain?

Kevin Leavitt
05-04-2009, 08:33 PM
The crux of the issue is the intended duality in Aikido.

that is, it is a fighting art.

At the same time, I believe the intent of O Sensei was transcendental.

that is, learning to fight in order to learn peace...so to speak.

you can't have one without the other.

I don't think you should remove the tactical and fighitng side of the art. I don't think you can and still use it as the tool O Sensei intended it to be.

NagaBaba
05-04-2009, 09:16 PM
I came across a relevant discussion in Gozo Shioda's "Aikido Shugyo" that seems germane to the topic at hand:

1. Shioda Kancho was a young, talented, and cocky Judoka who was skeptical of O Sensei's art. He thought it was fake...until he was invited to attack Ueshiba Sensei and discovered otherwise.

2. Three time All Japan Judo Champion Kimura Masahiko said to Shioda Kancho, "In terms of self-defence, Judo, which today has abandoned the use of atemi, has a lot to learn from Aikido."

Shioda Sensei held that the sporting aspect of Judo and other martial arts adapted for competition diluted their martial nature.
Hello Rabih ,
Before throwing from left and right the 'the relevant quotes' taken out of context, I'd suggest to read Peter A Goldsbury writings, here on aikiweb. Remember, he is watching you all time :D

Ketsan
05-04-2009, 09:18 PM
And aikido teachning doesn't have such tools.



I've never seen two instructors who teach the same way within Aikido. Within my own association there are aiki-faery teachers who produce students who can't do anything without a highly co-operative partner and there are teachers who produce students that you can't lift, can't move and are so powerful that you don't have a choice about being thrown.

NagaBaba
05-04-2009, 09:31 PM
The crux of the issue is the intended duality in Aikido.

that is, it is a fighting art.

At the same time, I believe the intent of O Sensei was transcendental.

that is, learning to fight in order to learn peace...so to speak.

you can't have one without the other.

I don't think you should remove the tactical and fighitng side of the art. I don't think you can and still use it as the tool O Sensei intended it to be.
I agree at paradoxal nature of aikido teaching, but I don't see it as a duality, it is for me an excellent, well thought ' System'. It contains some martial aspects, but only someone very disrespectful for O sensei (or someone very naif) can see it as a fighting system.

All technical evidences are right in front of our eyes. The direct students of O sensei are teaching many things, but not fighting. How come someone can believe in a 'fighting' fantasy?

NagaBaba
05-04-2009, 09:33 PM
and there are teachers who produce students that you can't lift, can't move and are so powerful that you don't have a choice about being thrown.
Are you saying these instructors teach how to fight?

DH
05-04-2009, 10:49 PM
Interestingly enough Ueshiba was already considered superior…incredible even- by those IN Judo. Many, judoka showed up to challenge his stuff and he in turn showed up at the kodokan to toss guys. Some considered his technique dangerous to try and take.
Not without notice, Ueshiba's contemporaries; His teacher Takeda, his peer- Sagawa, Kodo, all did likewise-Sagawa while in his late seventies- was tossing around gold medal Olympic judoka. Hell even Kano called Ueshiba's aiki the highest form of Judo.

Since the superiority of the method (the power of aiki) over Judo has already been well established-what is the debate about? Just what are those in the art-doing-wrong? Where are the men who are doing Aikido as that same superior art? And why, (for those who are able) are any equivocating about judo's strengths to prevail against it? As is so typical in these debates, all have forgotten their heritage. It's even becoming popular to make excuses that Ueshiba was so different that it's unattainable and okay to be less. It's as if they hold it in abeyance not daring to be challenged by it or even hoping to fulfill it.
Oh well
Dan

Ketsan
05-05-2009, 06:05 AM
Are you saying these instructors teach how to fight?

I'm saying these instructors can make you so powerful that knowing how to fight starts to become irrelevent. Let's say your opponent has a Thai boxing/BJJ skillset, we say that these kind of people are trained to fight. And lets imagine you have trained under one of the instructors I'm talking about.
Your posture is so good that it's impossible to take you down or throw you and you're so powerful that against his thai boxing you can just walk up to him, grab him and throw him around like a rag doll.
I'm not talking about your techniques being powerful, I'm talking about you being so powerful that you don't need technique.

Demetrio Cereijo
05-05-2009, 06:46 AM
Your posture is so good that it's impossible to take you down or throw you and you're so powerful that against his thai boxing you can just walk up to him, grab him and throw him around like a rag doll.

I'm not talking about your techniques being powerful, I'm talking about you being so powerful that you don't need technique.

And who and where are these powerful people you're talking about?

Shany
05-05-2009, 07:17 AM
Interesting place, the internet. Log onto the forum for any discipline and you'll hear lots of stories proving that their art is the best, and giving numerous unverifiable examples of masters of other arts being defeated. Its always a bit surprising to step on the streets afterward and not have to pick your way through streets littered with the bodies of defeated proponents of inferior styles.

And yet, when you meet people from other styles in person, none of these unproven claims seem to arise, individuals don't claim that either they or their style is the best, and there's generally nothing but respect all around. I'm not sure if that's because people who really train can't be bothered to slag other styles and so the proclamations in question are made by beginners in the rush of enthusiasm for a new activity, or if the people who put down other styles are simply too cowardly to do it in person when they meet a disciple of a different style. The effect however is quite pronounced, and I suspect anyone who has done any martial discipline has noted it.

Actually, some Karate user (in the dojo I train) used to bash me about Aikido, and its applications (He claimed to study Aikido for 3 years prior to Karate). He did that during a conversation I had with a Karate user asking me what Aikido is.

I think a lot of people are driven by ego to preserve the Art that they are so souly practicing by actively show them the how their art is superior.

DonMagee
05-05-2009, 07:35 AM
I'm saying these instructors can make you so powerful that knowing how to fight starts to become irrelevent. Let's say your opponent has a Thai boxing/BJJ skillset, we say that these kind of people are trained to fight. And lets imagine you have trained under one of the instructors I'm talking about.
Your posture is so good that it's impossible to take you down or throw you and you're so powerful that against his thai boxing you can just walk up to him, grab him and throw him around like a rag doll.
I'm not talking about your techniques being powerful, I'm talking about you being so powerful that you don't need technique.

I say extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Life experience and physics both tell me that I will never be unthrowable. The same tells me that if I just walk up to a well trained boxer who is out to knock me out without using good technique to properly defend myself that I'm going to need facial reconstructive surgery.

Example: Forrest Griffin once kicked a reporter in the leg. He broke it.He fights at 205. I walk around at 160. He is a pro athlete who spends all day learning to fight, I am a computer jockey who spends a few hours a week. If you can find me an instructor who can teach me to walk up to forrest, call him a pansy and spit on him, and watch his blows glance off me as I effortlessly walk up to him and taken him down, well then I will give you 85% of my UFC winnings.

Ketsan
05-05-2009, 07:41 AM
And who and where are these powerful people you're talking about?

Birmingham.

lbb
05-05-2009, 07:51 AM
Eventually, every one of these discussions starts to sound to me like AD&D gamers arguing about whether a level 3 orc can defeat a level 2 lawful paladin and how many 20-sided dice you have to roll to figure it out.

Rabih Shanshiry
05-05-2009, 07:56 AM
Hello Rabih ,
Before throwing from left and right the 'the relevant quotes' taken out of context, I'd suggest to read Peter A Goldsbury writings, here on aikiweb. Remember, he is watching you all time :D

Szczepan,

Can you point me to the specific writings of Mr. Goldsbury that you have in mind? I'm a rookie on the board but would very interested to learn more.

Thanks,
...rab

Ketsan
05-05-2009, 08:25 AM
I say extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Life experience and physics both tell me that I will never be unthrowable. The same tells me that if I just walk up to a well trained boxer who is out to knock me out without using good technique to properly defend myself that I'm going to need facial reconstructive surgery.

Example: Forrest Griffin once kicked a reporter in the leg. He broke it.He fights at 205. I walk around at 160. He is a pro athlete who spends all day learning to fight, I am a computer jockey who spends a few hours a week. If you can find me an instructor who can teach me to walk up to forrest, call him a pansy and spit on him, and watch his blows glance off me as I effortlessly walk up to him and taken him down, well then I will give you 85% of my UFC winnings.

a) Is that legally binding?
b) How much money are we talking about?

I'm in the position of not wanting to speak for individual instructors, I can only tell you what I have witnessed. They're not unthrowable, it's just that no-one I've ever trained with either in Jujutsu, Judo or elsewhere in Aikido is going to throw them and no-one I've trained with outside of these people has posture as strong as these guys.

Until you feel it for yourself you wont believe it. If you're ever over here I'll ask about taking you down, I can't imagine that being a problem. Just make sure you've got a week or so to recover. :D

Demetrio Cereijo
05-05-2009, 08:34 AM
Birmingham.

Zanshin-Kai Aikido Club at Sutton Coldfield perhaps?

Ketsan
05-05-2009, 08:36 AM
Zanshin-Kai Aikido Club at Sutton Coldfield perhaps?

Close but no, that's where I train. Although I suppose you know that.

DonMagee
05-05-2009, 08:42 AM
a) Is that legally binding?
b) How much money are we talking about?

I'm in the position of not wanting to speak for individual instructors, I can only tell you what I have witnessed. They're not unthrowable, it's just that no-one I've ever trained with either in Jujutsu, Judo or elsewhere in Aikido is going to throw them and no-one I've trained with outside of these people has posture as strong as these guys.

Until you feel it for yourself you wont believe it. If you're ever over here I'll ask about taking you down, I can't imagine that being a problem. Just make sure you've got a week or so to recover. :D

Rather then answer your questions. I think I'm going to use an aikido tactic here and just tell you that you havn't trained with the right judo, jiujitsu, or thai people or trained with them long enough. :D

I'm sorry, but seriously you rmaking the claim that you know people who could not only walk though Forrest Griffins strikes like he was a child, but teach me, an uncoordinated nitwit to do it?

Ketsan
05-05-2009, 08:43 AM
Eventually, every one of these discussions starts to sound to me like AD&D gamers arguing about whether a level 3 orc can defeat a level 2 lawful paladin and how many 20-sided dice you have to roll to figure it out.

They've moved on to WOW. Back in the day it was "The only thing between you and black belt is you." These days it's "The only thing between you and black belt is you and WOW."

Ketsan
05-05-2009, 09:01 AM
Rather then answer your questions. I think I'm going to use an aikido tactic here and just tell you that you havn't trained with the right judo, jiujitsu, or thai people or trained with them long enough. :D

I'm sorry, but seriously you rmaking the claim that you know people who could not only walk though Forrest Griffins strikes like he was a child, but teach me, an uncoordinated nitwit to do it?

No I'm making the claim that I know of and have trained with people with, in my opinion since I have not scientifically measured it, far more power and much better posture than any other martial artists I have ever trained with and that said people are Aikidoka. And that is my opinion that their posture and power is such that I doubt most other martial artists could deal with it.

I also make the claim that there are tactics and strategies common to all Aikidoka for dealing with strikers.
I also see no reason why most people couldn't be taught all this.

I make no claims about Forrest Griffins, I've never met the guy and I don't know what he's capable of. For all I know he might secretly train with a chinese immortal who invented martial arts 6000 years ago. :D

Nicholas Eschenbruch
05-05-2009, 09:09 AM
Eventually, every one of these discussions starts to sound to me like AD&D gamers arguing about whether a level 3 orc can defeat a level 2 lawful paladin and how many 20-sided dice you have to roll to figure it out.

Thanks, that really made me laugh!

georgejjr
05-05-2009, 09:42 AM
Interestingly enough Ueshiba was already considered superior…incredible even- by those IN Judo. Many, judoka showed up to challenge his stuff and he in turn showed up at the kodokan to toss guys. Some considered his technique dangerous to try and take.
Not without notice, Ueshiba's contemporaries; His teacher Takeda, his peer- Sagawa, Kodo, all did likewise-Sagawa while in his late seventies- was tossing around gold medal Olympic judoka. Hell even Kano called Ueshiba's aiki the highest form of Judo.

Since the superiority of the method (the power of aiki) over Judo has already been well established-what is the debate about? Just what are those in the art-doing-wrong? Where are the men who are doing Aikido as that same superior art? And why, (for those who are able) are any equivocating about judo's strengths to prevail against it? As is so typical in these debates, all have forgotten their heritage. It's even becoming popular to make excuses that Ueshiba was so different that it's unattainable and okay to be less. It's as if they hold it in abeyance not daring to be challenged by it or even hoping to fulfill it.
Oh well
Dan

I have to wonder if you're really that naive? Seventy year old judo instructors throw around Olympic level judoka in randori all the time as well (you see it regularly at the Kodokan in fact). In fact, 95 year old Fukuda sensei (who could often barely get out of her wheelchair) did the same regularly. You might be able to guess why ... or do aikidoka show no respect to their elders?

Ueshiba was definitely an exceptional fighter, but there is no evidence that he ever did randori with Kano or Mifune, the two greatest judoka of his time. So you draw deep conclusions from the fact that the greatest of aikidoka was able to throw around judoka who would also have been thrown around by Kano, Mifune, and many other judoka? There are aikidoka who have lost in MMA. I'm guessing your response would rightly be to question the ability of the aikidoka, and to point out they weren't the great masters ... and hopefully see the parallel to what you're doing. In fact, most style vs style threads come down to the same - master from A beats non-master from B, hence proving the superiority of A. The other thing they have in common is that they generally don't actually test their theory against live opponents. It'd be pretty easy for you to find an Olympic judoka and do randori with him to confirm the superiority you so lightly proclaim. And then easy for anyone in the judo community to ask that Olympian if it really happened ... or even to watch it on you-tube.

The Gracies operated on those lines (though they were cautious enough to do their "invasion" at the club of a 50 year old who never medaled internationally), and if nothing else you at least have to give them credit for starting to test their theory instead of putting them out from the safety of a keyboard.

Kano's comment about aikido shows deep admiration for the techniques and style of aikido, but if Kano believed aikido was superior he'd have quit judo and studied aikido himself, or at the minimum incorporated it directly into judo, as he did with several styles (such as he did with Fusen-ryu, and even elements of western wrestling). Kano seems to have admired the principles of aikido (and there is much to admire there) - but there's a huge difference between that and saying the other was superior, and in general only the very close minded cannot find things to admire in other disciplines.

If you're going to speak about other martial arts, you might consider at least learning a bit about them before hand. The short history of judo is full of examples of taking elements from other styles and incorporating them into judo. I suspect Kano took principles from aikido as well, but almost none of the techniques, and for the same reason he wouldn't have taken techniques from boxing for judo's atemi waza ... it involves a different range.

NagaBaba
05-05-2009, 10:31 AM
Szczepan,

Can you point me to the specific writings of Mr. Goldsbury that you have in mind? I'm a rookie on the board but would very interested to learn more.

Thanks,
...rab

AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Columns -> Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation....

NagaBaba
05-05-2009, 10:35 AM
Hi Szczepan, I heard a long time ago that the hardest and most important thing about budo practice is finding the right teacher. I think it's true.
Hello Chuck,
What do you think, the right teacher, what will be easier for him to develop martial aspect of art:
1. having as a primary material 3rd dan of judo
2. having as a primary material 3rd dan of aikido?

Ron Tisdale
05-05-2009, 10:46 AM
My preference is 3rd dan judo as primary material. I'll say it again, I think I'd have a MUCH better base with judo. Perhaps not as much the competition based stuff, but even with only that...those guys have a solid base to build on.

Best,
Ron

NagaBaba
05-05-2009, 10:55 AM
I'm saying these instructors can make you so powerful that knowing how to fight starts to become irrelevent. Let's say your opponent has a Thai boxing/BJJ skillset, we say that these kind of people are trained to fight. And lets imagine you have trained under one of the instructors I'm talking about.
Your posture is so good that it's impossible to take you down or throw you and you're so powerful that against his thai boxing you can just walk up to him, grab him and throw him around like a rag doll.
I'm not talking about your techniques being powerful, I'm talking about you being so powerful that you don't need technique.
Hi Alex,
As I suspected, we are having a difficulty to establish a common vocabulary - that is a meaning of 'fighting'. I think you tend to see it as a sportif competition.I don't. Fighting has a broader meaning to me.
Additionally, from my point of view, having a immobile posture and being very powerful are not the most two desired proprieties of a fighter.In fact it can very easy become the biggest weakness in the fight.
In conclusion, I still don't see any proof that aikido as a system can produce a skilled fighters.
Of course, we may find one or even five individuals among aikidoka around the world, that learned how to fight during their aikido training(were they genetically gifted?), but if you see a global number of all aikido students, it is a really poor result.

I'll give you down to earth example: I as a software developer create an application that is able to calculate accurately once or twice for one millon operation, the rest of the results are beautiful pictures.What will be the real goal of this application? :p

Ketsan
05-05-2009, 02:18 PM
Hi Alex,
As I suspected, we are having a difficulty to establish a common vocabulary - that is a meaning of 'fighting'. I think you tend to see it as a sportif competition.I don't. Fighting has a broader meaning to me.
Additionally, from my point of view, having a immobile posture and being very powerful are not the most two desired proprieties of a fighter.In fact it can very easy become the biggest weakness in the fight.
In conclusion, I still don't see any proof that aikido as a system can produce a skilled fighters.
Of course, we may find one or even five individuals among aikidoka around the world, that learned how to fight during their aikido training(were they genetically gifted?), but if you see a global number of all aikido students, it is a really poor result.

I'll give you down to earth example: I as a software developer create an application that is able to calculate accurately once or twice for one millon operation, the rest of the results are beautiful pictures.What will be the real goal of this application? :p

Depends on the intention. Whether your program lives up to the intention is another matter.

Fighting has such a broad meaning to me that I find it almost to be a meaningless word, so I chose a narrow example of thai boxing/bjj because it covers a large area of potential skill set.

Not an immobile posture an immovable posture. Perhaps base is a better term. To my way of thinking agility and speed of movement is one of the hallmarks of good Aikido, as is good solid posture/base. There's no point entering rapidly into a clinch only to find your posture/base is weak.

I don't quite share your pessimism though. It's an article of faith more than anything that Aikidoka can't fight; there's no real evidence one way or the other. Aikidoka just don't get into fights enough to provide the data to draw conclusions. If you know wheather Aikido teaches fighting or not you're either unlucky enough to have been assaulted numerous times or you're a criminal.

Ron Tisdale
05-05-2009, 02:25 PM
If you know wheather Aikido teaches fighting or not you're either unlucky enough to have been assaulted numerous times or you're a criminal.

Please, all you have to do is look at how we train to see that we don't teach fighting. I can see debate around whether what we teach, train, and learn has "applications for fighting"...

But saying here, grab my wrist...is not training for fighting.

Best,
Ron (Ellis has an interesting article in his book on this. I was just rereading that this past weekend.)

Phil Van Treese
05-05-2009, 02:51 PM
English is my 7th language, and I can spell correctly in all languages I speak.

Chuck Clark
05-05-2009, 03:18 PM
Hello Chuck,
What do you think, the right teacher, what will be easier for him to develop martial aspect of art:
1. having as a primary material 3rd dan of judo
2. having as a primary material 3rd dan of aikido?

Of course, it depends on who their teacher is/was, what the peer group they trained with was like, their own mind/heart values, etc., and for sure, who promoted them. ... and oh yeah, what sort of real life physical combative situations they've survived. There are sandan and then there are sandan. :straightf

Best regards,

Ketsan
05-05-2009, 08:48 PM
Please, all you have to do is look at how we train to see that we don't teach fighting. I can see debate around whether what we teach, train, and learn has "applications for fighting"...

But saying here, grab my wrist...is not training for fighting.

Best,
Ron (Ellis has an interesting article in his book on this. I was just rereading that this past weekend.)

How do we train? Do we all train the same way? If what you teach has applications for fighting and you impart that knowledge to your students then you have done as much as anyone can to teach them fighting.

If a guy trained in Thai boxing breaks into my house and I confront him with an iwama ryu bokken is he trained for the fight he's about to find himself in? I would say not. In that case he isn't trained for real world fighting because in the real world there are people with big sticks who know how to use them.
The same is true if the guy was a judoka or a boxer or a BJJer. They're all equally likely to end up with a crushed skull after loosing a real fight. Why? Because their arts have no martial application they are not adaptable to circumstances because these arts have defined what is and is not a fight and they have attempted to teach "fighting".

Aikido makes no such attempt. We know to make such an attempt is hubris. Aikido comes from this martial culture where low cunning and constant trickery were regarded as the norm and assumptions about how you would be attacked would get you killed.

In the same vein if you attack a thai boxer morote dori (i.e you grab his guard) and you know how to unbalance him with there isn't really much he can do because he can't punch and kick across his own centre line.
This is not a "realistic attack" this is not "real fighting" but he will end up in the real A&E none the less.

So you say "Aikido is not training for fightiing" perhaps not but this ironically only demonstrates how martial Aikido is. We know we can't predict our opponent or the circumstances under which we fight. We realise other systems are hopelessly optimistic when they define how other people will attack us and we train accordingly.

NagaBaba
05-05-2009, 09:01 PM
My preference is 3rd dan judo as primary material. I'll say it again, I think I'd have a MUCH better base with judo. Perhaps not as much the competition based stuff, but even with only that...those guys have a solid base to build on.

Best,
Ron
That is one of the reasons for my first reply to this thread :D

NagaBaba
05-05-2009, 09:03 PM
English is my 7th language, and I can spell correctly in all languages I speak.
Lucky you :cool:

JO
05-05-2009, 09:08 PM
Mars is the Roman god of war. If one defines martial as that relating to war, both judo and aikido are descended from old military combat arts but neither have much to do with war anymore. One is a modern sport and the other is method of self improvement.

Both are martial in the sense that they maintain a focus on training revolving around physical conflict. I am also of the opinion that they both achieve their goals best when the "martial" and "effective" aspects of their techniques are maintained. In judo this is just a lot more obvious and easier to verify. Judo has the advantage of clear goals and methods while in aikido no two people seem to able to agree on the goals or the best methods for achieving those goals.

So which is more martial. I vote for neither as the bombs rattling my windows remind me of how empty handed fighting is somewhat removed from the realities of the battlefield (I live near a military base, not in a war zone, for those who may be wondering).

Ron Tisdale
05-06-2009, 07:51 AM
I'm sorry Alex, but I think you give the rank and file of combative sports too little credit, and the rank and file of aikido and similar arts too much.

If a guy trained in Thai boxing breaks into my house and I confront him with an iwama ryu bokken is he trained for the fight he's about to find himself in?

Nice hypothetical. But that is all that is...unless you have actually *faced* a Thai boxer with your bokken. Have you? Have *you* trained for that situation? If so, what was the result? Plenty of people who don't train have actually taken away the big stick and beaten their assailent over the head with it. ;) Sometimes it just happens. :D Depending on the people involved, where they train, how they train, etc, anything can happen. By the way, you assume you will *get* to your bokken, and that someone who is breaking into your house entered someone else's property unarmed. In my experience, even most criminals aren't that stupid, and most people relaxing and/or sleeping in their house don't necessarily have a weapon to hand. You, of course, may be the exception...I know I tend to keep a weapon within reach (just as a mental habit) when at home in my place. But then there a quite a few, so its easy... ;)

And most importantly, I don't think we should make assumptions about arts *we* don't train in, or what other training they might engage in.

We realise other systems are hopelessly optimistic when they define how other people will attack us and we train accordingly.

Wow...can't get on board with this at all. I see as much as that in aikido as anywhere else. Try out a Pukulan fighter with two kerambits. Better yet, one trained in judo as well. I think he'd see your bokken and raise you a visit to the morgue. :eek:

Best,
Ron

Aikibu
05-06-2009, 09:09 AM
Mars is the Roman god of war. If one defines martial as that relating to war, both judo and aikido are descended from old military combat arts but neither have much to do with war anymore. One is a modern sport and the other is method of self improvement.

Both are martial in the sense that they maintain a focus on training revolving around physical conflict. I am also of the opinion that they both achieve their goals best when the "martial" and "effective" aspects of their techniques are maintained. In judo this is just a lot more obvious and easier to verify. Judo has the advantage of clear goals and methods while in aikido no two people seem to able to agree on the goals or the best methods for achieving those goals.

So which is more martial. I vote for neither as the bombs rattling my windows remind me of how empty handed fighting is somewhat removed from the realities of the battlefield (I live near a military base, not in a war zone, for those who may be wondering).

Outstanding! Thank you. :)

William Hazen