PDA

View Full Version : Aikido does not work at all in a fight.


Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9

Please visit our sponsor:
 

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


JasonFDeLucia
04-30-2006, 03:17 PM
Dan,

I know you didn't mention chest, kidneys etc. That was my perspective on the scenario and was simply pointing out that the falling to the ground was to move down the continium to a "better" position than having that happen to you. It is all realitive to the situation.

Legs are less risky than the core. the Most vital Arteries on the legs are on the back of the knee, hamstrings, and on the front Femoral. On your front it is more difficult for someone to get to your vital arterial areas. They have to bend down and underhook to get to the back of the knee.

Again, we can argue all day long. It is realitive to situation and "what if"..so not perfect and only an "option" or perspective.

yea..no kidding...if I have a choice I wouldn't go to the ground either.

Guys that think BJJ guys "want" to fight from the ground have no experience in BJJ and really don't understand the dynamics of fighting. I was of this limited mindset myself several years ago!

I admit it is scary if you have rudimentary skills in ground fighting! Also, to re-interate...BJJ guys don't default to the ground by choice in a real fight...they simply are more efficient than those that refuse to accept this as a fact that it happens!

We train with Tasers on occasion. Much more effective and realistic than sticks...try it out if you haven't. Nothing like pain to get the message across to get out of the way and positive control of the situation!
i would have to agree a taser could be the best thing to train with if you train for knife or gun defense ,maybe the best way to ki up acuteness .

i think it can't be stressed enough about psychology .basic formula that there are specific methods like kotekaeshi designed to, in their successful execution ,effectively neutralize the situation .but even if sufficiently mastered in all aspects including the kaeshi waza for countering ,the mindset should be to not want to get into it unless it is unavoidable and at absolutely the most vulnerable moment .and if being performed by an armed constable it would be the gun and not the techniques you'd use .

Kevin Leavitt
04-30-2006, 05:19 PM
Thanks for taking the time to contribute Jason.

I have not seen your fight yet, January or February right? Hope it went well.

What a coincidence! I just got to the States this afternoonn and went by Borders to stock up on my Reading materials, just so happens I grabbed UFC2 "classics. Just looked at it and realized your fight with Royce is on it!

I agree with your comments about "not wanting to get into it". Closing the distance in the ring is one thing, doing it, or having it done to you in a real situation is tricky. As you state, the pyschology, avoiding the stiuation, and minimizing risk and exposure, having to think, and all that at the same time!

At the point where the technique might work, comes quickly, and goes quickly.

theflyingheadbuttsuplex
05-02-2006, 03:25 PM
MMA people argue:- TMA people (including Aikido-ka) sucks because they don't spar live and do resistant randori and does not join Pride, K-1 to prove their prowess.

TMA people argue:- MMA sucks because they only concentrate on ring fight with man made rules and do not do weapon based training, hence is not realistic enough.

Well, depending on how you see it, both side think that each other sucks. There you go... enternally a catch 22 situation.

Have we reach the 1,000th post yet?... No? ... Damn!

Here is a game, the first person to reach 1,000th post will get free aikiweb m'ship for free. How is that?

Jun? Game for this challenge?

Well put. This thread has been going for about a year now!

Mark Freeman
05-03-2006, 04:50 AM
Well, depending on how you see it, both side think that each other sucks. There you go... enternally a catch 22 situation.

What would we call "a catch 22" if Mr Heller hadn't written the book? ;)

Not a very constructive addition to a flogging a dead horse thread, but one step closer to someone winning the coveted prize :D

JasonFDeLucia
05-03-2006, 05:00 AM
...I agree with your comments about "not wanting to get into it". Closing the distance in the ring is one thing, doing it, or having it done to you in a real situation is tricky. As you state, the pyschology, avoiding the stiuation, and minimizing risk and exposure, having to think, and all that at the same time!

At the point where the technique might work, comes quickly, and goes quickly.
amen ,brother!

DH
05-05-2006, 09:33 AM
Xu Wenfung wrote:
MMA people argue:- TMA people (including Aikido-ka) sucks because they don't spar live and do resistant randori and does not join Pride, K-1 to prove their prowess.

TMA people argue:- MMA sucks because they only concentrate on ring fight with man made rules and do not do weapon based training, hence is not realistic enough.

Well, depending on how you see it, both side think that each other sucks. There you go... enternally a catch 22 situation.


I disagree completely. I think the only question is one of self assessment and openess in realizing the strengths and weaknesses for what they are.
And it should be said BTW
Some- MMA guys think TMA guys suck.... not all.
Some- TMA guys are doing MMA.
Jason fights professionally and is trying to incorporate TMA principles. The rest of us are not on that level of profesionalism but I know half a dozen guys like me who have trained extensively in TMA and Koryu who continue to be honest about MMA training. Of those several use knives and sticks that have nothing to do with a ring setting either.

There is just as much....scratch that...probably MORE laughter and fun in rolling and banging as there is in Aikido-its not as formal. And there is no where near as big a deal about winning and losing. I have never understood the fear of it. What? A teacher can't lose? You win, you loose, you roll, and learn.
I say go out, have fun, and just relax. You may find you actually LIKE the MMA guys more or at least as well as your TMA friends.
Try some CMA guys while you're at it.
Its all good
Gotto go work.
Cheers
Dan

Williamross77
05-06-2006, 10:19 AM
In one of the arts i teach it is MMA, the other Aikido is in my mind for a completely different thing.
Aikido can work for real in a fight, but if you train your whole life for a fight that never comes, you have waisted your life. Aikido is for both, martial(street) and holistic development, I think if you focused aiki training like Ueshiba did under the old Hell Dojo days it would prove dangerous in the ring, which is exactly why they changed the rules to exclude certain techniques. So Honestly MMa is as real as it can get and keep it relatively safe, and Aikido is as real as it gets in a whole life approach ( if you train correctly) IE Dancing: don't get me wrong, Dancing has it's place in the learning the basics part of aikido, i mean dealing with forces ( however slow that may be) we train with force but often slow speed to learn.

Don_Modesto
05-06-2006, 10:49 AM
Well put. This thread has been going for about a year now!

Nope:

10-17-2000, 05:14 PM #1
"joeysola"
IP: --.217.144.230
Join Date: Aug 2000

Five and a half!

So, any summaries of the preceding? Why did this troll get such a return yellowing the snow here?

Kevin Leavitt
05-06-2006, 03:54 PM
Dan Wrote:

VWhat? A teacher can't lose? You win, you loose, you roll, and learn.

FWIW, i fought today in the "King of the Alps", a submission tournament with no time limit, no rules cept no hitting or kicking basically, won the first fight after 20 minutes by a ezeikel choke. Lost the next two in about 2 minutes each by omaplata, and arm bar and was out of the fight.

Had a good time, learned alot, and developed some new friends today!

I made all 6 of my guys fight as well. Told em it was not important if they won or loss, but that they had the courage to set their ego aside, enter the ring, face an unknown opponent and go to battle with him.

They all lost ultimately, but we had a good time, and I believe they are better off and learned valuable lessons of budo today and had a good time!

Nothing wrong with losing. It is not about the winning or the losing, it is about the courage to do something.

Don_Modesto
05-06-2006, 06:09 PM
FWIW, i fought today in the "King of the Alps", a submission tournament with no time limit, no rules cept no hitting or kicking basically, won the first fight after 20 minutes by a ezeikel choke. Lost the next two in about 2 minutes each by omaplata, and arm bar and was out of the fight.

Had a good time, learned alot, and developed some new friends today! ....

Nice attitude. I think if more people could resist the allure of victory, Osensei wouldn't have proscribed competition.

Dajo251
05-06-2006, 10:22 PM
this thread seems to continue around in circles........

wendyrowe
05-07-2006, 04:59 AM
this thread seems to continue around in circles........Maybe, but it's something that's going to be discussed as long as there are people and Aikido, so it may as well happen here. And the discussion does veer off slightly in one direction or another as new people join the forum, so that brings at least somewhat different viewpoints.

Let's face it, there are people out there who still say some variant of one of these:
1. Aikido does not work at all in a fight
2. Aikido works fine if you train correctly
3. If you have to use Aikido because you are in a fight, your Aikido has already failed

So we may as well talk about it here. And every once in a while as participants change, the discussion will produce a new pearl that might cause at least one to rethink some aspect of training.

Come to think of it, I believe that's my 5.5 year summary.

I wonder what Joeysola's doing now?

Richard Langridge
05-07-2006, 07:43 AM
I bet joeysola's a l337 kiLLzorz.

Kevin Leavitt
05-07-2006, 12:29 PM
Thanks for the comments Wendy. I second your opinions. That is why after all these years I still contribute and discuss on this thread.

That and I secretly want to see it reach 1000! :)

Yes, I agree this question must and should be asked by all aikidoka at some point in their aikido career.

Don_Modesto
05-07-2006, 12:39 PM
1. Aikido does not work at all in a fight
2. Aikido works fine if you train correctly
3. If you have to use Aikido because you are in a fight, your Aikido has already failed

Come to think of it, I believe that's my 5.5 year summary.

Suspected as much.

Much obliged.

I wonder what Joeysola's doing now?

Me, too.

wendyrowe
05-07-2006, 12:56 PM
I wonder what Joeysola's doing now?Me, too.

Possibly playing "Get Tiffany" http://www.gettiffany.com/archive.asp?p=playerprofile&a=222948
and jumping cardboard boxes http://www3.youtube.com/watch?v=btzfHFbmlnQ&search=joeysola but technically that's off topic. Unless he can't fight his way out of a cardboard box using Aikido.

drew-jitsu
05-08-2006, 01:43 PM
Keith, as an example of what I am talking about, I would refer you to this YouTube presentation in which Sensei Gozo Shioda, the founder of Yoshinkan Aikido, is giving a demonstration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=Shioda&v=1sCevYMrZtY

Shioda liked to illustrate the principle I am talking about by having his uke rush toward him fast and try to shove him hard in the chest. Just at the moment the uke's hands are about to make contact with his chest, Sensei Shido moves his entire being forward less than one inch, almost imperceptibly. The results are quite marked.

The attacker is covering distance, has momentum; Shioda Sensei seems to hardly move. Yet what is the result? The uke is thrown violently to the floor.

I simply did this to an opponent who was bent over, head down, trying to wrap up my knees.

If done with proper timing, *(Heck, EVERY AIKIDO TECH. HAS TO BE DONE WITH PROPER TIMING) the results speak for themselves.

Get the timing wrong, go to early, go too late, don't go strong enough, etc. of course it won't work.

But I've gotten that one right several times, so it's just not a nice theory that I have.


It is video demonstrations like the one shown in this thread that diminish the reputation of Aikido and is why I chose to do BJJ. Please don't think that I'm trolling here. I don't wish to start a "whose art is better" kinda post here. I just want to share with you why I chose to do BJJ, even though my personality much more fits Aikido.

Admittingly, I've only been doing martial arts (BJJ) for 6 months now. When I was trying to figure out which art to go with, I had extensively researched and considered three arts. Aikido, Muay Thai, BJJ. When researching, I looked at a lot of martial arts forums/videos as well as random street fights that were caught on tape. The video demonstrations I found on Aikido struck me more like WWF Wrestling. They seem completely staged and non-believable. Anyone who believes for instance, the deadly toe grip that was demonstrated in this clip can inflict that much pressure to another toe is the same type of person who would believe televengilists cure people of their ailments by hitting their heads on TV. Also, that multiple attacker senario is so complete BS it's not even funny. My personal favorite of course are touchless throws. How many of you people really believe this stuff? It seems like Aikido is treated more like a religion by those who practice it, which is what kinda turned me off. How can one teach the concept of Chi without showing any empirical evidence of it's existence. The concept of Chi is much like the concept of God. You have to have faith. As a scientist by trade, I refuse to believe in something that is not proven by some sort of empirical evidence.

After watching many UFCs (I know, I'm ducking my head in shame right now) and random street fights on tape, it became clear to me that all fights are chaotic. They are not pretty as demonstrated in the movies or aikido clips. In all the street fight videos I saw, almost all of them went to the ground. Whether you want to take the fight to the ground or not, chances are you will wind up their either voluntarily or involuntarily, and you better know what to do when you get there. Muay Thai seemed too violent to me which is why I chose BJJ. BJJ and Aikido intruiged me because it was a way a smaller person can defeat a larger person without inflicting injury if desired (even though I am 6' 200lbs). I think why many of you Aikidoka have a complex about your art's effectiveness is because many of you don't train live at 100% against a fully resisting opponent. It's clear by how long this thread has been going on and how many posts there are that there is some kind of insecurity amongst you regarding effectiveness. Live sparring helps build confidence but does not suit aikido because it is too dangerous to train like we do in BJJ. I know many of you must question whether you'd be able to pull of an aikido technique in a real situation. I don't question that I would be able to pull of my BJJ in a real situation with an untrained opponent even if they had 50 lbs on me. I know because I've done it to the newbies in my dojo. This is what I call the Aikido paradox. O'Sensei perfected his art through years and years of studying other martial arts and practicing live. He often accepted challanges even after developing Aikido. This begs the question why is it not done this way now? In
order to master aikido like O'Sensei, you must train and fight like he did which is paradoxical because it is against the principles of Aikido. There is no doubt that O'Sensei was a great man, but he is still a man and that makes him fallible as well as a bit hypocritical for developing a martial art that you train not to use since he achieved his proficancy by the application of his technique.

Also, regarding the stereotyping of the typical BJJ practitioner. It is completely false. There are maybe 3 guys I've seen at my dojo that fit that discription. If I told you that people who practice Aikido are Hybrid driving granola eating tree hugging overweight middle-aged hippies, I'm sure you'd be able to find a few in your dojo that fit that discription, but it would not be the norm. Most BJJ acadamies offer a free lesson. I think many of you would like it if you tried it. Just my thoughts.

As I said, my intention was not to troll here. Only to demonstrate the logic as to my decision not to take Aikido as my first martial art. I intend to take it up in the future because i can see some useful applications of the technique. However, in no way am I ever going to believe I can throw someone with my chi, fight multiple opponents or handle someone with a weapon. I might as well believe I can learn how to do Darth Vader's force choke.

D

Kevin Leavitt
05-08-2006, 02:38 PM
Drew,

Welcome and good luck with the start of your martial career.

That you are new to aikido and MA in general i'd be very careful about forming opinions and conclusions about things you may not completely understand.

I and many others certainly share many of the concerns you mention. I did not watch the video, nor do I really care to.

There is good aikido, bad aikido...as well as good BJJ and bad BJJ. Don't judge the whole art and those who practice it by a few videos etc.

I also recommend you read through the 5 plus years of material that this thread covers. You will find it very enlightening to say the least. It will answer every argument and concern that you have...I guarantee!

In aikido you will find some very practical people. Also you will find people that study martial arts and aikido for a multitude of reasons. That does not excuse poor aikido, because regardless of the reasons for studying the art...one should never study poor aikido!

You will find that Aikido tends to be a principle based art. That is, most of us concern ourselves with studying the underlying dynamics that make things work. They are universal in nature, thus apply to BJJ and any other art based on sound theory and principle.

For that reason you will find many of us that train in both MMA, BJJ, and Aikido.

If you need proof, check out Jason Delucia above. If you watch UFC, you will know who he is.

In all due respect, I don't think your conclusions about O'sensei are necessarily correct.

Drew wrote:

There is no doubt that O'Sensei was a great man, but he is still a man and that makes him fallible as well as a bit hypocritical for developing a martial art that you train not to use since he achieved his proficancy by the application of his technique.


Not sure I really understand what you are referring to here, but I think you may be missing the point of aikido and what it was created for. Again, please spend sometime reading through this and a few other threads to see what many of us have discussed concerning this issue over the years.

Also, concerning the insecurity issue about people and the effectiveness of aikido. No, again, I think you are missing the whole point. You have to look much deeper and see that fighting, conflict, mental and physical are very, very complex subjects.

Are there people in aikido that can't fight there way out of a paper bag? Sure there are! There are also people that have learned to be very skillfull at resolving conflict in many other ways through the study of aikido, not necessarily represented or marked by physicality.

Are there people in BJJ that can't fight there way out of a paper bag? Absolutely. A criticism that I might offer is that many of them don't develop skills that help them skillfully resolve conflict at a lower level.

Lets not really go there right now though as we'd be here another 5 years discussing this issue that has no end or quantifiable answer!

Certainly a sophmoric view of fighting/conflict allows us to resolve all conflict physically. If this is all we were concerned with, there really would be no need for studying empty handed martial arts BJJ, Aikido, or otherwise....think about it!

Most of us develop a very simplistic and over romanticized view about fighting, conflict, and what it envolves. Most of that comes from the Media that we read, watch, and listen to.

Aikido is about much more than developing rudimentary fighting skills that are "combat effective" (TM).

If you are sincere in your efforts to explore aikido for what it can offer you. I believe you will find many skilled and experienced people here that will be patient and answer many of your questions and concerns.

You will find that we tend not to be argumentative in nature, but will not hesitate to disagree or to offer a counter opinion.

One reason I like Aikiweb is that the conversations tend to be mature, well thought out, and sincere in wanting to better understand aikido, conflict, and all things martial.

again, I'd recommend keeping an open mind toward aikido, but do go forward and challenge people and thoughts, that is what this is all about!

Also, you live in No California. There are many, many, many wonderful aikido dojos there with experienced sensei's and intructors that are not about parlor tricks and what not. That said, it is a much different environment than a BJJ dojo, and it may not be what you are looking for if you are looking for fast, immediate, and effective skills only.

However, if you are interested in other aspects of what martial arts can offer you, I'd seek out a few of these dojos and have an open mind!

Good luck!

milhasan
05-08-2006, 09:50 PM
Kevin, do you believe me now? I hope you do.
I am referring Drew Nichols post. :)

xuzen
05-08-2006, 11:23 PM
Hey Drew,

I suggest you break your post up to a few posts... we are in a race to see who gets to post the 1,000th post in this thread. You can also win the coveted title of being the 1,000th poster in this thread... aren't you excited?

And Drew, I am very sure when you wrote the composition you felt like having an epiphany but sadly "yawn", your argument is old, stale and sounds like a broken record.

And yes, Mohammad H, I get your point.

p/s 230 more posts to go...

Kevin Leavitt
05-08-2006, 11:47 PM
Mohammed,

you'd have to restate your point. I went back and read it and I am not that clear.

Drew seems to be sincere. I would not put him in the troll category yet.

It was his first post. I would not put him in the troll category yet.

He openly states he has only been studying MA for 6 months. So it would stand to reason based on his observations that he would have the opinions and conclusions that he has formed. Many which, frankly, are not incorrect on the surface from his perspective of fighting.

Frankly many aikidoka do harbor feeling of insecurity and do feel threatened by BJJ. That however, is a personal conflict within themselves and should not be conveyed on the art or categorically on all that study aikido.

I can only offer to those that do feel this way, that they need to get over it somehow. one, either accept their own self imposed limitations, or two, go study BJJ! No need to create an argument about how much more effective BJJ is over aikido. That is not the point, and what I am saying is totally different than that. The freshman view of the world might offer this...but again, it is much more complex!

Again, at this point I think based on the information he has collected from his own limited experiences his conclusions are honest, sincere, and not entirely incorrect. He simply might want to keep an open mind and not dismiss things.

I did this many years ago, and wasted many years of valuable training. It all depends on what you are looking for in your training.

I will tell you that I studied aikido and karate for about 12 years and then stepped in the world of MMA and NHB fighting and had my ass handed to me by grapplers and BJJers with less than a years experience. It really was hard to face this fact and I seriously doubted all the years I had spent training...it is a scary thing to have that facade broken down.

So I think there is some validity to the reputation "we" earn as aikidoka sometimes.

However, it depends on your goals and really is an individual decision to make. If the shoe fits wear it, if not...then it is irrelevant!


Learning to be a good and effective fighter was very important to me. It is also important to me to learn the skills that aikido teaches. Hopefully one day I will understand all this stuff and be able to put it back together for my own brand of understanding!

So, I guess Mohammed, I am willing to entertain those that come along and look at aikido and see it as something different than maybe you or I do. You might want to look deep inside yourself. Maybe the frustration is not the fact that a few young inexperienced BJJers are trashing your beloved art, but that deep down inside you intrinsically know it has not rounded you out as well as you may like to be as a Martial Artist. Maybe this is what really bothers you about it.

I only point this out, because that was what I found out for myself. Aikido was not the issue, other aikidoka were not the issue, it was me and what I needed and wanted out of a martial art.

To me it is sort of like a bad marriage. Nothing wrong with the two people in the relationship, but sometimes we try too hard to make it into something it is not, that causes conflict and it may never ever be resolved by trying harder. Sometimes we must "let go" and admit to ourselves that we have to move on, or do something else to get fulfilled in another way.

Or something like that!

Sorry to get so preachy I am just passionate about all this stuff!

Keith R Lee
05-09-2006, 06:33 AM
I will tell you that I studied aikido and karate for about 12 years and then stepped in the world of MMA and NHB fighting and had my ass handed to me by grapplers and BJJers with less than a years experience. It really was hard to face this fact and I seriously doubted all the years I had spent training...it is a scary thing to have that facade broken down.

So I think there is some validity to the reputation "we" earn as aikidoka sometimes.

The exact same thing happened to me. It can definitely be disheartening. A wave of different emotions and thoughts moved through me afterwards. Confusion, disbelief, frustration, anger... It was probably the anger that kept me going though. evileyes

It was a big step for me to put aside 7 years of Aikido and switch to Sambo/MMA and become a beginner again. However, the more time I spend in Sambo/MMA the more I find similarities between Aikido and my new training. Aikido's principles are universal, they just manifest themselves very differently in grappling/MMA. I still maintain that really high-level grapplers have some of the most Aiki-type movement I've encountered. They are masters of subtlety.

I asked in another thread: (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=140239#post140239)

"Also in terms of "ego," are we sure that it is not the ego that is holding some of us back from testing out techniques in a "live" environment? In Aikido there is always a set outcome when one is shite(we win), in "live" training there is no such guarantee. Can we be sure it is not the ego in ourselves as Aikido practitioners, as our technique "always" works (we were told so!), that is keeping us from stepping outside of our comfort zone and discovering how techniques work for ourselves? Could we not handle the bruising to our ego when our techniques do not work?"

I think they're pretty relevent questions to an Aikidoka who wants to be honest with themselves in terms of the martial effectiveness of their training.

Luc X Saroufim
05-09-2006, 09:13 AM
The exact same thing happened to me. It can definitely be disheartening. A wave of different emotions and thoughts moved through me afterwards. Confusion, disbelief, frustration, anger... It was probably the anger that kept me going though. evileyes

It was a big step for me to put aside 7 years of Aikido and switch to Sambo/MMA and become a beginner again. However, the more time I spend in Sambo/MMA the more I find similarities between Aikido and my new training. Aikido's principles are universal, they just manifest themselves very differently in grappling/MMA. I still maintain that really high-level grapplers have some of the most Aiki-type movement I've encountered. They are masters of subtlety.

I asked in another thread: (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=140239#post140239)

"Also in terms of "ego," are we sure that it is not the ego that is holding some of us back from testing out techniques in a "live" environment? In Aikido there is always a set outcome when one is shite(we win), in "live" training there is no such guarantee. Can we be sure it is not the ego in ourselves as Aikido practitioners, as our technique "always" works (we were told so!), that is keeping us from stepping outside of our comfort zone and discovering how techniques work for ourselves? Could we not handle the bruising to our ego when our techniques do not work?"

I think they're pretty relevent questions to an Aikidoka who wants to be honest with themselves in terms of the martial effectiveness of their training.

while both of you make extremely valid points, i will claim that you are throwing this way out of proportion.

IMextremelyHO, if a person ever attacks you, it will never be an experienced martial artist. through years of training, a martial artist learns respect, discipline, etc. there's no way a MMA master or a Shodan is going to break into your house, or threaten your life.

so with that being said, Aikido should be plenty effective against your average scumbag that doesn't know what he's doing, or a friend of yours that loses his cool. again, imo, martial arts is for self defense against people who cannot control their anger or rely on strength to "win". martial arts is *not* for self defense against other martial artists.

Budd
05-09-2006, 09:54 AM
I'd offer a couple (I think) related questions:

Do you want to train to prepare for the average person? Do you want to train to prepare for a determined and skilled attack?

I don't think it's necessarily an either or case, but I would agree with that playing with others (I'm still looking for those reviews of the Machado workshop at Aiki Expo!! :)) to see what they do can be very fun and enlightening.

Kevin Leavitt
05-09-2006, 11:53 AM
I had the same question that you pose Budd.

Also consider this. We tend to like to think that attacks will come with warning and we will have time and space to deal with them.

I thought the same things and had the same ideas about what a common unskilled attack would be like. That is until I was doing MOUT/CQB training and I entered a room and a non-skilled guy jumped me, took me down, and mounted me. No amount of training I had ever done had prepared me for such an event. He was just an average guy, with average skills, with no background in martial arts. He mounted me and proceeded to choke me. I struggled hard, gassed and that was all she wrote!

Okay, I know that you are probably saying well that is a military scenario. I think that many attacks will go this direction, i.e. guy jumps you without warning. I learned that it does not necessarily take much skill to overpower and dominate someone.

Many of the skills you learn in aikido are good for situations, however, most of them require that you have established a kamai and proper timing and distance. This is why aikido works so well for law enforcement as they more often than not will have established the situation well in advance, they control it, and allow it to develop.

I don't think I am throwing it out of proportion at all. I never claimed that aikido was irrelevant, or not valid/appropriate. Only valid and appropriate for what it is designed to do in it's methodology.

There are other training methodologies that work well for other things that may or may not be important to you.

I only ask that you think hard about the situations you may find yourself in, and then evaluate what you might do or be able to do in that particular situation.

If this is not important to you. I have no issue with it.

JasonFDeLucia
05-09-2006, 12:48 PM
The exact same thing happened to me. It can definitely be disheartening. A wave of different emotions and thoughts moved through me afterwards. Confusion, disbelief, frustration, anger... It was probably the anger that kept me going though. evileyes

It was a big step for me to put aside 7 years of Aikido and switch to Sambo/MMA and become a beginner again. However, the more time I spend in Sambo/MMA the more I find similarities between Aikido and my new training. Aikido's principles are universal, they just manifest themselves very differently in grappling/MMA. I still maintain that really high-level grapplers have some of the most Aiki-type movement I've encountered. They are masters of subtlety.
i think it will be a kick for everyone concerned to look through the book "the canon of judo" by kyuzo mifune .many would never have guessed the techniques he demonstrated in this book were fundamentals in judo because of popular conception .

examples:

1. achilles lock and block
2. irimi nage (uprooting the tree)

bear in mind when these pictures were shot and that it's not just some current trend to extol someone else's virtue as their own .

milhasan
05-09-2006, 01:03 PM
So, I guess Mohammed, I am willing to entertain those that come along and look at aikido and see it as something different than maybe you or I do. You might want to look deep inside yourself. Maybe the frustration is not the fact that a few young inexperienced BJJers are trashing your beloved art, but that deep down inside you intrinsically know it has not rounded you out as well as you may like to be as a Martial Artist. Maybe this is what really bothers you about it.

Let us read it again, this thread is all about what? oh yes! AIKIDO DOES NOT WORK AT ALL IN A FIGHT. Now where did we see anything about Aikido vs. other arts? Well, how about Aikido vs wrestling?, Aikido vs. Boxing? Aikido vs Muay Thai? None. But only Aikido vs Bjj keeps coming up. Why is that?
Because no other arts practitioners moves around forum to forum & desperately trying to prove how great their art is except Bjjer's. Now who has the INSECURITY problem? :)
They all have the same stories. i.e "I have tried other arts & wasted my training time until I found Bjj. It changed my life. I am enlightened now. I know the true meaning of life finally. And of course I can beat you up." :D
Here's a typical Bjj practitioner with 6 months of vast experience with his extensive research just proven us that how wrong we are. I guess we Aikidoka should leave our dojo's & join Bjj. Because now that we know there is always a Bjjer waiting for us in the street to beat us up empty handed. wait a minute! why not weapons? Are we being close minded? Bjjer carry weapons too. Then why a need for ground fighting or any form of empty handed combat?
How about violent confrontation? When was the last time any violent confrontation took place without a weapon? specially firearms.

Kevin, The reason I joined this forum, to find out about any Daito Ryu dojo within 100 miles from me. It's been several years since I practiced Aikido. My beloved art not just Aikido as you stated(since you know all about me & my inner frustration). I have experienced only merely 3 arts. One of my beloved/Respected art is Massad Ayoobs LF Training & my close companion customized HKP7M8. That's not my only companion though. With that & my past experiences I am quite comfortable with myself in the street. You answered your questions several times in this forum. Aikido as a "Su" not "do". I know several Aikidoka benefits from that part. You are right , I am not well rounded MA. And I will never be well rounded. I am always learning. I will never know it all. That's why I read all the post in this forum by Dan Harden, Brian cates, Dennis hooker, Ron Tisdale & other experts with utmost respect & curiosity in the topics like Jo tricks. without posting any of my opinions. Because I know very little about those subjects. I am not going to run my mouth with my inferior knowledge about a subject with these heavy hitters with years of experience & experiments under their belts. What my experience entails to is, streets of southeast Asia to here in N.Y . And I was not alone.
If someone training in NHB, MMA or Bjj to compete, to be in great shape or defend themselves that's great. But if anybody training these areas with the goal of becoming a empty handed street fighter, they are not fantasizing. They are living in a fantasy land. Now a days you will be very lucky if you have to fight someone without a weapon. If I run from dojo to a Bjj club to become a baad *ss, then I become a Model of a Insecure person in the true form. I am all for cross train any grappling arts , not just Bjj. Why not Sambo, jjj, wrestling, Judo Shuai Chiao etc. This summer My 8 yrs. old & I was going to enroll a local Bjj club. But I am having serious doubt.
After a couple of months of training, I surely don't want my 8 yrs. old to start bashing TKD practicing classmates or join this forum to start challenging Aikidoka. :)
Kevin, I wonder what type of violent street experience/encounters that you have in your past. I have read your discussion about going to the ground with knife . With all due respect Kevin, Your experience with knife most likely none. Knife experts will have a field day with your theory. :) Here is knife drill to try. Go pick up couple of day labor for 12 bucks an hour. Buy them lunch. Then give them magic markers as a knife & tell them to stab you. As a motivator, for every marks on your body they get 5 bucks. Roll with them outside in the parking lot on the asphalts. Watch what happens. Knife experts usually starts the demo with a 9/10 yrs. old girls with magic marker, and ask each participants to touch her without being marked.
yes deep down I surely know who I am. In my present employment I won't last a day with a slight of a insecurity about myself.
Now deep down do you know your weakness & frustration about not being able to be sure with yourself in the street? Is that the only reason you went to MA ? To be a better empty handed fighter? Maybe deep down a venomous serpent of insecurity constantly chasing you & some other Bjjers. when guy's like us like to stay away from forums such as Bullshido & joins Aikiweb, still finds it filled with same form of stereotype, inferior & derogatory posts towards the Aikidoka & even towards the founder.
Please take a hint: Some of us fought out in the streets before. We are not in Aiki Dojo for that. If there were still Samurai's today, they would not carry Katana. They would carry a street sweeper.
Question: Whats the preferred method of street fight of Royce Gracie?
Answer: Royce prefer his trusty SIG SAUER.

drew-jitsu
05-09-2006, 02:43 PM
Easy on the digital Jihad there Mohammed. My whole point of argument was not that BJJ is better than or more effective than Aikido. THe point of my post was the way that it is commonly trained i.e. not against fully resisting opponents 1) makes application of the technique in a real situation questionable since an untested weapon is basically no weapon. 2) Because it is not tested with aliveness, there seems to be insecurity in many of it's practicioners because they are unsure they can pull off technique when push comes to shove. Could any of you honestly say that on the street in a confrontation with your adreniline pumping you can execute a complicated Aikido technique? The person who likened Aikido to Calculus was right on. It is a complicated art that takes a long time to master. If that is the case, then BJJ is like Algebra, and that is one huge advantage. All things being equal, the less complicated the process the more chance of success of that process. You can use both calculus and algebra to solve many of the same problems. Why complicate your life by choosing the more difficult.

You say people that train in BJJ for the street are living in a fantasy land? Where does that leave you? I may not have the dearth of martial arts knowledge that you have, but one thing I know is that the way BJJ is trained is closer to an actual confrontation than tje way Aikido is trained, unless of course on the street people don't resist throws.

I know my arguments aren't new. I'm sure you've heard them all a million times before. With the information I have, it seems completely logical. Is there any additional information that you care to impart on me to enlighten me?

THe whole reason for me taking a martial art was because I wanted to learn to defend myself if I had to. While Aikido appeals to my sensibilties, I don't have the patience to wait 10 years to master it. BJJ is super easy, and quick to learn. It offers the same advantages of Aikido, i.e. small person vs. large person. Third, the way it's trained is probably the closest you can get to in a street fight.

Ron Tisdale
05-09-2006, 02:51 PM
Why complicate your life by choosing the more difficult

Builds character. Hmm...well....it's supposed to. My Sensei said so...uhhh...

oh never mind...

Best,
Ron

milhasan
05-09-2006, 03:01 PM
Drew, Your previous comments & post is sooo far out there, I did not even attempt to respond to that.
You guy's still don't get it. Street fights will be won by the person is better trained in weapons. That's why a lot, yes a lot of NHB guy's taking weapon based arts on the side. your 6 months of training & extensive research on Aikido did gave me an idea. I will train 3 month in Bjj then open my dojo by name of Mohammed-jutsu. I will claim to be Grand master of 10th degree red belt & Mohammed -jutsu can move mountain. Go ahead humor me again.

drew-jitsu
05-09-2006, 03:10 PM
Also as an addendum. Regarding multiple opponents and weapons. Do you really think Aikido will help you in such a situation. Doesn't it stand to reason that if one man is able to take you down, wouldn't two be able to do it that much easier? Even those who claim they can't be taken down are eventually taken down. The multiple opponent senarios I've seen in those cheesy aikido demonstrations are completely unrealistic. The truth of the matter is that no martial art will help you in those situations. That is why Royce Gracie likes his SIg Sauer.

milhasan
05-09-2006, 03:11 PM
You say people that train in BJJ for the street are living in a fantasy land? Where does that leave you? I

No Drew I did not say that. Here's a copy exactly what I said.
[

B]But if anybody training these areas with the goal of becoming a empty handed street fighter, they are not fantasizing. They are living in a fantasy land[/B]

milhasan
05-09-2006, 03:19 PM
Also as an addendum. Regarding multiple opponents and weapons. Do you really think Aikido will help you in such a situation. Doesn't it stand to reason that if one man is able to take you down, wouldn't two be able to do it that much easier? Even those who claim they can't be taken down are eventually taken down. The multiple opponent senarios I've seen in those cheesy aikido demonstrations are completely unrealistic. The truth of the matter is that no martial art will help you in those situations. That is why Royce Gracie likes his SIg Sauer.

Read my post again & see where did I said about anything about street fighting by using Aikido. let alone multiple opponents.
Great Drew, You have done some excellent research. You made a breakthrough that most of us still Novice at that area. Let me run to my nearest Bjj club so I can be sensible, practical & safe person. Since we aikidoka are not. :D

milhasan
05-09-2006, 03:22 PM
Drew, why do I have the feeling that you are really a Aikidoka? You are just pulling our legs?

drew-jitsu
05-09-2006, 03:22 PM
Drew, Your previous comments & post is sooo far out there, I did not even attempt to respond to that.
You guy's still don't get it. Street fights will be won by the person is better trained in weapons. That's why a lot, yes a lot of NHB guy's taking weapon based arts on the side. your 6 months of training & extensive research on Aikido did gave me an idea. I will train 3 month in Bjj then open my dojo by name of Mohammed-jutsu. I will claim to be Grand master of 10th degree red belt & Mohammed -jutsu can move mountain. Go ahead humor me again.

Well you can't really use that name. You see Drew rhymes with Jiu which is what makes it clever. Mohommed does not rhyme with Jiu, so it would kind of not really work. (I'm messing around with you)

Regarding your points on weapons. That is assuming that there are weapons, which is a function of your enviornment. If you're at a bar in south central Los Angeles on a Friday night, there is a good chance that at least 75 % of the people you encounter are armed in some way. However, if you're in a bar in Malibu, chances are that not many people are armed. I have always lived in relatively safe and affluent areas, so I think my chances of getting into a confrontation with someone unarmed are pretty good. I think when we talk about street fighting here, we always assume it's in some low rent demilitarized zone where cops won't even dare to venture. Every fight I have ever witness in bars or night clubs has been between two unarmed combatents and was broken up within 2 minutes and 4/5 have gone to the ground. This is why I train BJJ. I'd like to make sure that the fight won't go beyond 30 seconds. Further more, in crowded club there is no way to make space. Usually space clears one the confrontation has begun. Maybe I should train Wing Chun. My point being is that I'm structuring my training to maximize my advantages in the enviornment I typically inhabit. If I lived in Iraq, I wouldn't even bother training empty hand techniques. I'd get an AK-47 and practice with that.

drew-jitsu
05-09-2006, 03:24 PM
Drew, why do I have the feeling that you are really a Aikidoka? You are just pulling our legs?

Why do you say that?

No, I mean it. I don't like violence and I do my best to avoid physical confrontation at all cost. I think that's pretty Aikido like no? I don't believe in hurting people, even those that deserve it.

drew-jitsu
05-09-2006, 03:27 PM
You say people that train in BJJ for the street are living in a fantasy land? Where does that leave you? I

No Drew I did not say that. Here's a copy exactly what I said.
[

B]But if anybody training these areas with the goal of becoming a empty handed street fighter, they are not fantasizing. They are living in a fantasy land[/B]

Reread it, and i originally missed your point. Your post was kind of long so it slipped by me. I agree with you here.

milhasan
05-09-2006, 03:32 PM
Btw Drew, even though you see my name as Mohammed, I am not Muslim. In fact I am a Mahayana Buddhist. so jihad has little or no meaning to me.

drew-jitsu
05-09-2006, 03:33 PM
Btw Drew, even though you see my name as Mohammed, I am not Muslim. In fact I am a Mahayana Buddhist. so jihad have little or no meaning to me at all.

This is why I lose in Vegas. What are the odds?

milhasan
05-09-2006, 03:37 PM
Drew, Thank you very much for keeping the sense of humor. I think that's the only cure we have right now.

Kevin Leavitt
05-09-2006, 03:41 PM
Mohammed wrote above:
Let us read it again, this thread is all about what? oh yes! AIKIDO DOES NOT WORK AT ALL IN A FIGHT. Now where did we see anything about Aikido vs. other arts?


Mohammed wrote in post 707:

Like I said in my previous post, Bjj trolling on every Martial arts forums. Whenever any effectiveness of a particular arts or style being discussed, there are always few Bjj practitioners will intervene & bash everything. To prove the superiority of the Bjj style. They will refuse to believe that it is not the art, it is the person. In this forum Aikido's effectiveness is a disguise to really eloquently talk about how Bjjer's can defeat Aikidoka.They are under assumption that we will be unarmed & facing a unarmed Bjjer in the street. Never heard or seen or read any street fights between Bjj & any other arts at least here in Orlando. This thread was to dissecting Aikido, not about Bjj.

Sorry if I offended you. It was not meant to be taken in that vein. My understanding of your comments was based on what you wrote in post 707. Did I get it wrong?

I believe you are making some assumptions and may be reading between the lines a little too deep on what I said.

Again, if the shoe fits, wear it...if not, then leave it alone. It is only you that can decide what is right for you and what is not right for you.

All I can share is what I have learned from my own experiences and training.

I cannot tell if you are inferring that I have been derogatory toward aikido, O'Sensei, or anyone else...that was certainly not my intent.

On another note, I have no interest in street fighting. If have followed my post as close as you seem to have followed a few of them since you bring them up, you would know that I have a very complex view on street fighting and self defense.

I also recommend that you go back and read my comments about ground fighting and knifes a little closer. I never proposed that this was a default solution for fighting, simply a "concept" and idea that was based around a particular set of parameters and situation. An idea and concept...not a solution.

About my experience. Well I can't claim any "street fights" of any great degree. Only a few stupid bar fights that I was a willing participant in. A few I got my ass kicked! Learned some lessons there.

Other than that, I would not claim to be an "expert" any more than anyone else. I just base my opinions on my experiences through what I have learned in the Army over the last ten years through training, teaching, and lessons learned.

I have had the benefit of experiencing things and training that the average citizen has not had the opporunity to be exposed to, much of it in the last several years...it has been eye opening and caused me to reassess many of my paradigms.

Does that make me an expert, no it does not. I never have claimed to be. I only have ideas and opinions that I am constantly questioning, reassessing and reorganizing.

What I have found is that I have a more complex view of martial arts, and in many ways I have less answers than I did 5 years ago!

I found that aikido has much more meaning to me and is much more relevant to today's world than I ever thought it would, however, in a much different way than what I originally thought!

I also discovered for myself that aikido was not the answer to everything that I needed.

It really is as simple as that.

Mohammed, you will probably find that you and I study aikido for many of the same reasons.

I hope we can find some common ground between us!

Kevin Leavitt
05-09-2006, 03:52 PM
Ah, Mohammed! See already we are having common ground. I too am a follower in Buddhist philosophy. A label, if you must, a "western buddhist"....follow and read many things from both the Theravada and Mahayana traditions, but don't really indentify culturally with on or the other since I am a westerner.

I think you and I would agree that things can be very complex! and that there are no absolutes. That is how I see martial arts and conflict....a very complex issue...many, many paradoxes!

Roy Dean
05-09-2006, 04:02 PM
BJJ vs. Aikido = The Past

BJJ + Aikido = The Future

Kevin Leavitt
05-09-2006, 04:06 PM
Drew,

I think part of Mohammed's frustration lay in the fact that you seem to have an overly simplistic view of aikido and it's goals.

Aikido is a DO art...so by nature and design, it is not easy to compare to something like BJJ. So you really are apples to oranges.

Aikido is a training methodology to help you develop your mind, body, and soul/spirit/attitude...whatever you want to label it. It is not primarily about developing fighting skills or becoming combat effective. The methodology should not be taken literally.

Conflict and fighting can be very complex. O'sensei recognized this as well did Kano, Ueshiba, Funakoshi, Uechi, and many others in post war japan. Do you really think it is a coincidence that all these great mean...to also include Maeda, came from the same general area, around the same time, and developed different, but albeit very, very similar philosophies and methodolgies for training?

Mohammed makes some very good points about fighting. It really gets over romanticized. I have severa; big banners in my dojo to remind my students/soldiers about the objectives of their training.

First one says. "leave your ego at the door".

Second one says, "The winner of a hand to hand fight is the one whose buddy shows up with a gun first".

Third one says, "The defining characteristic of a warrior is the willingness to close with and destroy the enemy".

I understand the third one seems a little harsh. But, well, that is what it is about. Key word is willingness. Not desire, not attitude...but willingness. Having the courage to do what is right!

Sure, you might go to a BJJ dojo and learn some really useful things. That is why I train in it almost daily these days!!!!

But, you must be careful to understand the complexity of conflict, fighting and what it means to enter into battle or dispense violence. What it means to make the decision to use violence as a means to resolve conflict. And what it means to deal with the aftermath of violence.

It takes little or no skill to get into a fight or really to win a fight. It takes much more skill to resolve a fight with little or no violence.

In aikido, we are training to become more skillfull at resolving conflict. A very, very complex concept to learn!

Mark Freeman
05-09-2006, 04:56 PM
Could any of you honestly say that on the street in a confrontation with your adreniline pumping you can execute a complicated Aikido technique? The person who likened Aikido to Calculus was right on. It is a complicated art that takes a long time to master. If that is the case, then BJJ is like Algebra, and that is one huge advantage. All things being equal, the less complicated the process the more chance of success of that process. You can use both calculus and algebra to solve many of the same problems. Why complicate your life by choosing the more difficult.

This shows a lack of understanding of aikido, of course there are complicated aikido movements, and movements that take many years to master. But if you understand aikido you don't do complicated when simple will do the trick.
The maths metaphor is way off the mark unless you accept that a man who has mastered calculus will probably use addition and subtraction most of the time.

I'm always mildly amused when the same misunderstandings are peddled about aikido from those who have 'seen some demonstrations' or have done it for a while.

Of course there are faster ways to become an effective streetfighter, if you want to be a streetfighter go train in them. You may end up being the best fighter around, good for you.

Aikido is not here for 'ultimate fighter' training. It is an art form based in the culture and history of the martial diciplines of Japan, brought to life by one man and spread around the world by the many students who learnt from him, students many of whom were recognised experts in many other arts. They all stayed because what O Sensei was offering was unique.

Aikido has an enormous amount to offer a wide spectrum of people.It can be practiced in the hard pre war fashion right through the spectrum to the softest flowing dance like movements that some like to ridicule.
It's all aikido and some aikidoka are much more effective in a real fight than others.
Aikido offers the mind, body and spirit a greater potential for developement over a lifetime than 'virtually' any other art.
My teacher is constantly castigating students for having a 'fighting mind' it being the thing that most stands in the way of their progress. Even when you are consciously practising it is not easy to get rid of.
You cannot practice full resistance training anything and expect to excel in the art of 'non resistance'.

Really fully understanding the true 'non resistance' of aikido may be the hardest part of the art to grasp.

Often the only way to reach this 'ideal' is to spend alot of time working on clearing your mind of all the clutter that gets in the way of it happening spontaneously ( the buddhists reading will know the problem )

Becoming a good grappler/fighter/ streetfighter is similar to a game of physical chess, you win, you lose, you try again, you get better but you can always be beaten by a younger/stronger/cleverer opponent.
Becoming a good aikidoka is not like this. You practice, you follow the way, you practice some more, you polish your spirit, you help others on the way. There is no winning, only constant improvement.

If you want to fight, go fight, if you want something better than fighting practice aikido ;)

regards
Mark

drew-jitsu
05-09-2006, 06:04 PM
This shows a lack of understanding of aikido, of course there are complicated aikido movements, and movements that take many years to master. But if you understand aikido you don't do complicated when simple will do the trick.
The maths metaphor is way off the mark unless you accept that a man who has mastered calculus will probably use addition and subtraction most of the time.

I'm always mildly amused when the same misunderstandings are peddled about aikido from those who have 'seen some demonstrations' or have done it for a while.

Of course there are faster ways to become an effective streetfighter, if you want to be a streetfighter go train in them. You may end up being the best fighter around, good for you.

Aikido is not here for 'ultimate fighter' training. It is an art form based in the culture and history of the martial diciplines of Japan, brought to life by one man and spread around the world by the many students who learnt from him, students many of whom were recognised experts in many other arts. They all stayed because what O Sensei was offering was unique.

Aikido has an enormous amount to offer a wide spectrum of people.It can be practiced in the hard pre war fashion right through the spectrum to the softest flowing dance like movements that some like to ridicule.
It's all aikido and some aikidoka are much more effective in a real fight than others.
Aikido offers the mind, body and spirit a greater potential for developement over a lifetime than 'virtually' any other art.
My teacher is constantly castigating students for having a 'fighting mind' it being the thing that most stands in the way of their progress. Even when you are consciously practising it is not easy to get rid of.
You cannot practice full resistance training anything and expect to excel in the art of 'non resistance'.

Really fully understanding the true 'non resistance' of aikido may be the hardest part of the art to grasp.

Often the only way to reach this 'ideal' is to spend alot of time working on clearing your mind of all the clutter that gets in the way of it happening spontaneously ( the buddhists reading will know the problem )

Becoming a good grappler/fighter/ streetfighter is similar to a game of physical chess, you win, you lose, you try again, you get better but you can always be beaten by a younger/stronger/cleverer opponent.
Becoming a good aikidoka is not like this. You practice, you follow the way, you practice some more, you polish your spirit, you help others on the way. There is no winning, only constant improvement.

If you want to fight, go fight, if you want something better than fighting practice aikido ;)

regards
Mark

So then it comes down to a question of motivation and beliefs. I know I'm going to offend a lot of people in this post on many different levels, but please keep in mind that is not my intention.

For me personally, I believe that martial arts should be just that. Martial. That's part of the reason I like BJJ. There is no philosophy/mysticism/religon involved. If I wanted spirituality, I would look for it at a church/temple/sinagog or where ever. I've been very cautious in my life regarding who's or what belief system to follow. I'm also very weary of any man who claims to have found the path to enlightenment or happiness or to claim to konw what God wants no matter how smart/wise/experienced they are. I guess my question is, and please don't take offence to this, are you fooling yourself into thinking that aikido is developing you in ways outside of martial combat? I ask this honestly because I will admit complete ignorance here. As you might have gleamed from my post, I'm not religious or spiritual in any way shape or form. I would like to get more specific information as to how aikido benefits you aside from the martial aspect. We've rambled on for almost 800 posts regarding martial effectiveness, why don't we talk about it's effectiveness in spiritual development.

Kevin Leavitt
05-09-2006, 10:50 PM
Martial is a big word that has many, many parts.

I am in the Army, so I believe I am somewhat qualified to discuss "martial".

It is not simply about fighting skills. It is taking those skills and all that you are and being able to use them over and over again in many different ways and on many different levels. It ties together you mental state, emotional state, physical, and spiritual...however you may define or not define that. Yes, not believing or having religion is also a spiritual state.

We do Combatives in the army. Our Field Manual addresses these very same issues. It is not primarily about the fighting skills that you learn but about the warrior spirit and the person. (FM 3-25.150 Chapter 1-2)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-25-150/ch1.htm

Aikido is not about religion. (go visit many of these issues on other threads!). It is about, as any martial art is, about developing your whole person.

BJJ is not as forth right about this, but it is still there. You do develop bonds and brotherhood fast in BJJ. It requires team work, cooperation, and a code of conduct and respect for one another.

Aikido is philosophically based more so than say BJJ. The methodology may not be for you at this moment in your life, or it may never be for you.

I can tell you having been in the military for 22 years, last 10 or so specifically as an Infantry officer, that I find many benefits to practicing aikido.

I recommend that you read Richard Strozzi Heckler's book..."In Search for the Warrior Spirit". It will give you an idea of the depth and complexity of aikido.

You will find that it is not necessarily all about "finding the path to enlightenment or figuring out what god knows".

I can tell you that over the years, my experiences in life and aikido have shown me many things. It has shown me that conflict is complicated. It has shown me that people fight for reasons that they do not really understand. It has shown me that we are by nature quick to want to be understood and not necessarily concerned about understanding others. It has shown me that through conditioning and experiences that we make assumptions that may cause us to respond unappropriately to a situation.

It has shown me that it is possible to see things a different way, to recondition your mind, body, and spirit to better understand people, their nature, and how we can better interact with the world and those around us.

So yes, it has "enlightened me". I am a much more content and happier person and tend to get along better with human beings.

All this is a part of Martial.

You don't simply fight with your arms and legs...you fight with the totality of your person. You fight every day you get up and take a breath. You fight in ways you don't understand!

If you want to talk about spiritual development. I would be happy to carry that to another thread under spirituality.

Kevin Leavitt
05-09-2006, 10:52 PM
BTW, Richard Strozzi Heckler and his associated dojo is in Northern California in the Bay area.

Mark Freeman
05-10-2006, 03:25 AM
Drew
For me personally, I believe that martial arts should be just that. Martial. That's part of the reason I like BJJ. There is no philosophy/mysticism/religon involved. If I wanted spirituality, I would look for it at a church/temple/sinagog or where ever.
A popular belief amongst the footsoldiers of MA, but listen to the old timers in many of the arts, and you will hear them talk of much greater things.
All arts have a 'philosophy' even if it is as crude and as basic as "we are only here to kick ass"
As far as my aikido practice goes there is no religion or mysticism involved. Also spirituality does not exist in churches temples or synagogues, it is a human condition.
I've been very cautious in my life regarding who's or what belief system to follow. I'm also very weary of any man who claims to have found the path to enlightenment or happiness or to claim to konw what God wants no matter how smart/wise/experienced they are
Very wise!
I guess my question is, and please don't take offence to this, are you fooling yourself into thinking that aikido is developing you in ways outside of martial combat? I ask this honestly because I will admit complete ignorance here.
No offence taken, you are up front about your lack of knowledge, but the simple answer to the fooling yourself question is No! (see below)
As you might have gleamed from my post, I'm not religious or spiritual in any way shape or form. I would like to get more specific information as to how aikido benefits you aside from the martial aspect.
Non martial benefits of aikido include:
Mental calmness
Better physical posture,
Better mind body co-ordination,
Sharper mental focus
Greater empathy with others
Increased sensitivity
Greater awareness
More skill in conflict resolution,
A greater appreciation of the 'flow' of life.
Better timing
A connection / feeling of 'family' with the worlds akidoka
Greater confidence

This list could ( and probably will ) be added to. I know that since I have been practicing I am a better father, partner and lover, I'm not (such) an aurgumentative, defensive pain in the ass that I once was.
Kevin's post just about covered all your questions, but I just wanted to add my own personal take.

regards
Mark

Dajo251
05-10-2006, 09:35 PM
so today i was driving and the guy infront of me hadtwo stickers, one was a tap out sticker and the other one said gracie jui jitsu real martial arts, and the first thing I thought of was this thread

Luc X Saroufim
05-11-2006, 10:36 AM
once in a while, a TKD/BJJ practitioner will study Aikido with us, just for kicks (no pun intended). He says he'll do Aikido "whenever he can."

i mentioned this thread to him, and asked him, "So studying BJJ/TKD and other arts, do you think there is a place for Aikido?"

before the blink of an eye, he said, "SURE! It can be very useful.....against drunk family members or in a Randori type situation"

that's good enough for me! :)

only 982 to go!

Raspado
05-11-2006, 10:40 AM
Those are great stickers!

Kevin Leavitt
05-11-2006, 01:09 PM
I like the one that says Tap out, Knock out, or Pass out....it makes no difference to me!

Lots of room for aikido! I was training a group of soldiers in Pugil sticks today. It has been a long time since I had to do that....irimi, tenkan, hit.....irimi, tenkan, hit! Weapons changes everything!

Raspado
05-11-2006, 01:58 PM
Kevin, I was thinking a lot about DO vs SU in martial arts. In addition to bjj, I take judo 2 x a week. I wondered about the DO emphasis on a style of martial art that focuses on SU which seems to me that judo does. I remember hearing a quote that doing randori with Jigoro Kano was like grasping and empty jacket. I also have heard many times that Rickson Gracie's BJJ is refered to as "aikido" on the ground due to his relaxed style. It seems to me that ultimately--to reach the highest pinnacles of these arts (SU) one still needs to focus on the DO.

Your thoughts?

Mike

Kevin Leavitt
05-11-2006, 02:49 PM
You know Mike, I don't know anymore. I used to think that there was something special about the dojo arts over SU arts as far as following the WAY. I am not so sure any more as I study BJJ.

I am not much of a historian but maybe the emphasis on developing the DO arts comes post war japan trying to be politically correct.

I think it is hard to tell anymore as we see martial arts and western martial artist mature in the western world into there golden years. I watch Helio Gracie and read what he writes and see many of the same similarities between what he says and does as in the DO arts.

Maybe as Royce, Rickson, Rorion et al., mature and age we will see a similar process in BJJ.

That said, the DO arts do offer us a wonderful methodology for developing character and understanding of ourselves and our relationships with the world and others.

Jimmy L
05-13-2006, 01:38 PM
My sensei and one of his senior students work as bouncers at rather 'exciting' night clubs. They both talk quite regularly at the start of meetings about what happened that week and the techniques used etc... they never claim to have been beaten (i know that it is only drunks etc but still to have never been seriously hurt is quite impressive i think)

Chicko Xerri
05-14-2006, 01:23 AM
Aikido only dose Not work when one fixates on technique.
The phrase goes, "attack me and I will cut your bloody head off ".
We are living in Disneyland if we think any Japanese martial art was created not to work in a fight.

Richard Langridge
05-14-2006, 02:15 AM
True, but surely we're also in Disneyland if we assume it will always work.

Chicko Xerri
05-14-2006, 03:02 AM
Exactly ! you have hit the nail right on the head.

Kevin Leavitt
05-14-2006, 03:52 AM
I've never been to Disneyland! Where does that leave me? Oh yea...at post 811! :)

If one concentrates on technique...how do you know that the technique is aikido...since techniques are fairly universal across all arts and a matter of perspective?

Aikido is a DO or way...how does that incorporate technique?

wendyrowe
05-14-2006, 05:59 AM
I've never been to Disneyland! Where does that leave me? Oh yea...at post 811! :)

If one concentrates on technique...how do you know that the technique is aikido...since techniques are fairly universal across all arts and a matter of perspective?

Aikido is a DO or way...how does that incorporate technique?
Some of this discussion started reminding me of a thread on fightingarts.com that had a really good discussion going last summer; take a look and see if it gives you any ideas to bring back here:

http://www.fightingarts.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=23&Number=15770364&fpart=&PHPSESSID=a2cfdad0bba50ee707011d12355c66b9
What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"?

Kevin Leavitt
05-14-2006, 01:35 PM
Thanks Wendy. I looked over a few of the post. Man, it can be tough defining what makes aiki...aiki. I have a few of my own opinions, but I'd like to hear from others as well.

aikido does not work in a fight, a fight does not work in aikido! an interesting perspective! I equate it to the Zen Koan "Stop Harm". How do you do this and still make it aiki?

How about the techniques? If they are universal...well then how to we recognize them as belonging to aikido? I don't think you can.

So what does aikido "own" how do you "know it when you see it?" How can you say "I know it works in a fight, because I used it!"

I think it makes an interesting paradox!

DH
05-14-2006, 02:07 PM
Aiki has always worked in a fight. It has occurred in confrontations without ever being named. It is exhibited by luck and chance, and by skills at all levels. Sometimes never to be duplicated again. It just "happened."
Then there is highly refined AIki as in Judo's Mifune. Aiki-Judo.
Wendy's long thread she offered with the dilema of Ju vs Aiki is a definition folks can debate till their dead.

For me;
Ju is a means with which to use the body as a defined method "to remain relaxed, pliant, and flexible" through an encounter.

As for Aiki and where it relates to Ju? Say fighter a. is flexible and lets say fighter b. is tight, flexing and isolating various muscle groups.
a. will perhaps have a better chance of creating and manipulating any possible connection between a. and b. iin order to create or take advantage of an Aiki connection for the simple reason that the flexible relaxed body can "read" and respond to input better than a tight body.
That said. There remains no guarantee that a. will be able to make use of any opportunity he either "gains" through skill or stumbles into due to luck or chance over b. if he is not equipped and experienced to handle it in a fighting format.

So, relaxed (ju) or no, Aiki or no, the better fighter may win out over a superior "ideal" or skill ...potential.... that was placed in the hands of someone out of their league in a combative sense.

All in all, Were one to weigh as a scaled measure of skill sets;
1. Relaxed is better than hard
2. Aiki or connection is great stuff.
3. But so is fast and experienced heavy hands, knees, throws, chokes and the ability to focus, press, set-up and play a man.

It is not a simple equation.

Dan
it will not matter if one is a better fighter

mathewjgano
05-14-2006, 08:34 PM
Aiki has always worked in a fight. It has occurred in confrontations without ever being named. It is exhibited by luck and chance, and by skills at all levels. Sometimes never to be duplicated again. It just "happened."
I agree! I was usually the smallest kid in class, and my friends, who loved to wrestle around, were usually the biggest kids in class. I learned quick that I couldn't out-muscle my stronger friends, and there were times when we were all a little amazed that I was able to take them down. I couldn't always reproduce the results, but sometimes I could. Almost 10 years later I was introduced to Aikido and I realized there was a practice dedicated to the principles I stumbled upon (and through) as a kid. The more I practice, the better I am at willfully integrating those principles into the way I move.
Not to harp on the title of this thread and its connotations, but after just surfing for a solid hour, I'm a little amazed at how often people commonly make sweeping generalizations about pretty much any given martial art. It's enough to reenforce my old misanthropy. Certainly it may be true that there are generalized truths about the different arts, and maybe I'm being nitpicky (and I'm sure people could point out where I've done this too) but I sure wish people would speak with a little more respect toward one another. How else can you teach a lesson so it will be received? And if the point of such rhetoric isn't to teach, why waste their breath at all? These questions are somewhat rhetorical in nature and I know many people are basically stroking their egos, but OOOH! it makes me want to give them SUCH a pinch!!! :D
Ok, got that little rant out of my system. Osumimasen!
Ogenkide!
Matt

Suwariwazaman
05-15-2006, 06:49 AM
Hello everyone. Just wanted to put my 2 cents in if I may.

First I really think Aikido is very effective in fight! Well definitely in a skirmish. I have a friend now that came at me witha marker. Thank goodness it wasnt a knife, but it could have been. Anyway when he Tsuki he stepped in. I am just a beginner by any means in Aikido. I tenkaned grabbed his arm, slid down it and made a great Kotegaeshi. Put him down on the floor like sack of potatos. He was in pain, I apologized but he asked what the ?#$!*!!! Where did you learn that. I told him Aikido. He practices Aikido now, but the point is it does work. I am also a 3 rd degree in Kenpo. I didnt revert back to a standoff stance and use Kenpo Techniques. I used Aikido. I had only a second to think about what I had to do. I really didnt think about it exactly. Only after did I realize what I had done. It was instinct I guess.

Now I think BJJ is awesome. Gracie, Shamrock, Ortiz they are the greatest. But I never forget the teachings of O'Sensei. I am a competitor also, but these guys train everyday, every minute for these bouts. They are professional fighters, so anyone who trains this way will be this way. Just dont cross their path. :D Aikido does not teach it's students to commit harm. However if you look at Aikido as Taijitsu or Kenjitsu you are dealing with an asassin. Also another art is Katori Ryu. Take a look at that and tell me thats not something. Take some Judo, Kenjitsu or Aiki, Kenpo and Greco-Roman Wrestling and throw it in blender and you get a UFC Fighter. Whew!! If I am off base then I apologize, but it frustrates me when I hear fellow MA's arguing about who's art is better. :( I know it's not all the same but we all carry the same integrity, bond and respect for our highly regarded art's.

If I know anything about what O sensei teaches is that we cannot be consummed by desire or this worlds manifestations to the point we forget who we are inside. To be a better person, not that anyone here isnt a good person or fighter, but when giving advice to whether it works or not you have to try it, and even then sometimes not everything will work for you in a fight, and then sometimes nothing will, and then sometimes everything will. There is too many varibles to this, controlled environment or on the street. :crazy:

Thanks J

pcallen
05-15-2006, 11:40 AM
I would hate to rely on BJJ in a "real fight" because when I took the first guy to the ground the other 2 or 3 would stomp the crap out of me while I was down. :uch:

Boxing wouldn't be that good in a "real fight" because someone might start kicking - then where would I be? :eek:

It all comes down to - there's some thing to learn from ALL arts. When practitioners at the highest levels (focus on the principles not the waza) of any martial art talk about their art there is much in common between all of them.

By the way, what's the best technique to use against someone that REALLY KNOWS how to use a gun? There is a greater and greater likelyhood that in a "real fight" that someone is going to pull one.

Kevin Leavitt
05-15-2006, 11:46 AM
Dan Harden wrote:

All in all, Were one to weigh as a scaled measure of skill sets;
1. Relaxed is better than hard
2. Aiki or connection is great stuff.
3. But so is fast and experienced heavy hands, knees, throws, chokes and the ability to focus, press, set-up and play a man.

It is not a simple equation.

Dan
it will not matter if one is a better fighter

I tend to agree Dan. I fight fairly loose and relaxed. However, I fought a guy in a submission tournament last week that was fairly new at fighting, about 20 years my younger, quick and strong. I was suprised at how well he was able to hold me at bay using stiff arms and strength.

It took me 20 minutes of playing around with him to finally choke him out.

Anyway, I do find that the softer and more balanced you are, the less energy it takes, and the better you can read the other guy and respond appropriately.

As you state in item #3....yes this stuff matters a great deal too!

Raspado
05-15-2006, 12:48 PM
I thought about that question I wrote you Kevin all weekend. I really like Dan's response as well. I agree completely. I proposed the question to a friend of mine who has only studied BJJ for a couple of years, but is extremely talented on the mat. Now I don't agree with his complete assesment, he makes some very good points. I do think too much athletic ability was given up--this can be very easily demonstrated by looking at the majority of people practicing aikido today but I don't agree that all the true benefit is found in athletic ability. His response:

My reply has been delayed since I was still gathering my thoughts on the subject, since I don't have any real personal experience with any of the DO arts.

From what I have seen and read (most about aikido -- we'll talk judo later), while the goal of using martial arts for character development and self-enlightenment is worthwhile, and while the founders and those still doing it today have the best of intentions, the way they went about doing this was misguided and ultimately counter-productive since they sacrificed too much of the athletic and practical aspects in order to tack on their culture's meditative and spiritual aspects. I feel the true benefits (physically and mentally) of martial arts are found in the athletic training.

Luis Gutierrez, SBG's Vice President and a BJJ black belt said this about trying to make martial arts about spirituality, and it stuck with me:
Martial arts in their active expression are physical. End of story. Unless you are talking extra-terrestrials, combat on Earth requires movement. Some then may argue that they have a spiritual side too, a meditative side, an all important psychological side. Guess what? So does every action. Why argue the obvious? If you are in the correct frame of mind, every single activity of a living conscious being is multi-dimensional. If you are "awake", taking out the garbage is a great experience. Given the correct perspective, you can make break through and learn about yourself anytime while doing anything.
So I don't hold much by the claims that many make about DO arts being "about enlightenment". I think they are normally just trying to excuse its ineffectiveness and don't realize that they took out much of the authentic benefits of it by reducing it to ritualistic training.

But you mentioned juDO and Kano, so I'll admit not everyone got this wrong. I've read Mifune's Canon of Judo and agreed with much of what he said, but if I recall correctly, he stressed how the benefits only come from hard practice and lots of randori.

I hope that was the kind of response you were expecting. Like I said, I don't have an real experience with DO arts, so I'm not sure if my understanding of the topic is sufficient.

Kevin Leavitt
05-15-2006, 01:44 PM
Mike,

You are hitting on the essence of what I am discussing on the "Jo Trick thread". I simply cannot word it well conceptually I suppose.

I tend to agree generally with the comments you friend. Maybe not some of the assumptions about the founder's intent.

Athleticism is a vital part of the art. At least in my aikido dojo it has been very robust, active, frankly more so sometimes than I have experienced in BJJ! Then again, I tend to be very aiki in my approach to BJJ. I agree however, that there is a definite difference between the concepts of speed and agility in BJJ vice Aikido.

I don't think that is a problem though as they are training two different aspects, which is why I think the marry up well.

I agree with character development and spirtual development. There is no corner in the market from Martial arts...it is simply "a way" for many to experience life. As you state in it's most basic form taking out the garbage can be a enlightening practice, and it should be! It is the small and simple things that matter!

However, taking out the garbage, no matter how spiritual or personally fulfilling it may be, will not prepare you to deal with conflict physically, emotionally, or spiritually. Martial arts I believe do help in this area...hence why they are so important for us to study.

From there, we get into the various paradigms, view points, philosophies of those that founded and practice the various flavors that we study.

Aikido certainly leans hard on the spectrum of conflict resolution from a "minimal force" perspective. I would also submit that BJJ does as well. So what makes these two arts seemingly so distinct and at odds at times?

I personally find no difference between the two arts in practice with exception to the range of distance they concentrate on.

What I do find is a difference in the type of students that are attracted to the arts in the U.S. They seem to be at opposite ends of the same stick for the most part.

I hate to get sterotypical, but typically aikido people tend to be more focused on the "internal growth" aspects while BJJ tends to be focused on "external effectiveness". Ironically they both in principle need to work the same way in order for the physical manifestation of movement to work correctly! That is what is so ironic about martial arts!

I think students in both arts could learn alot from each other!

Luis Guitterrez's comments are direct, common sense, and very to the point. However, I am not sure he has characterized DO arts correctly. Maybe his experiences were with people that were more concerned with "enlightment" to the point that they no longer where practicing a martial art. Got it. Not for you...move on. Not so sure they are using it to make excuses for it's ineffectiveness, but have evolved it to suit there needs. May not simply line up with Guitterez's value system. Sure there are those out there that are, but I think this does not categorically apply to the DO arts.

BJJ is very effective as a martial art. To be honest, it's students are on the average much more effective in physical confrontation than Aikido students. (Sorry guys but I have found this to be true). That said, the full spectrum of conflict deals more than with street brawls, knife fights, and direct physical conflict.

Frankly BJJ does a very poor job of teaching people to skillfully resolve conflict through the full spectrum of conflict. Philosophically it is not concerned with it. It is only concerned with the physical part. A very important part of it.

I'd say for the average U.S citizen, they do not need to hone physical fighting skills, and would be much better served through the skills and habits gained through aikido, they are probably more practical.

You know, we are all products of our own delusionment and I think that this is what we must consider more than anything.

If I am concerned with ground fighting I am going to train with the best ground fighters I can find. If being a good knife fighter is important than i am going to train with the best knife fighter I can find. If I am going to study the philosophy and lessons of aikido, which I find important, I am going to study with the best aikido teacher I can find!

What we should not do is continue to be deluded and think that our chosen art can be something that it is not, or that we can "will" it into being that what we wish it to be. It is what it is, and we should practice it and accept the lessons that it teaches us. If we cannot reconcile that, we should find something else that better accomplishes that goal.

Mark Freeman
05-15-2006, 02:54 PM
You know, we are all products of our own delusionment and I think that this is what we must consider more than anything.

If a mind is deluding itself, how can it know the truth?

Am I deluding myself if I think there is an answer?

Just a couple of questions set by a periodically deluded mind ;)

regards,
Mark

Kevin Leavitt
05-16-2006, 02:55 PM
I am affiliated with Aikido of Northern Virginia as my home dojo back home in the states. I am a student there. I do not have students in aikido at all.

I instruct Modern Army Combatives and BJJ in Germany to the military community. Sorry I did not clarify this.

I did not mean to say that my personal opinions apply to those views of ANV necessarily.

That said, I see nothing wrong in spirit in how you might incorporate those views. Aikido as it is taught mainstream is principle oriented in nature and a DO art. I do not agree with his apparent complete dismissal of principle centered arts.

I think there are some benefits to be gained from the study of aikido as it is commonly practiced.

However, if I was concerned with effectiveness only....I would not teach the way we teach in aikido (and don't). It has nothing to do with the validity of aikido...simply two different objectives in training.

mathewjgano
05-16-2006, 06:14 PM
Luis Gutierrez,...said this about trying to make martial arts about spirituality, and it stuck with me:
Martial arts in their active expression are physical. End of story. ...Some then may argue that they have a spiritual side too, a meditative side, an all important psychological side. Guess what? So does every action....If you are in the correct frame of mind, every single activity of a living conscious being is multi-dimensional. If you are "awake", taking out the garbage is a great experience. Given the correct perspective, you can make break through and learn about yourself anytime while doing anything.
I really like this message. I might nit-pick the first two quoted sentences if not for what follows up after it. I do think sometimes you have to focus more heavily on the non-physical parts of martial arts, but the purpose of that is of course to allow a more potent manifestation in the physical world, whether it be greater general poise or whatever. I think the bottom line should always be taken into account, just as should the loftiest ideals & goals.

Kevin Leavitt
05-17-2006, 12:15 PM
I am curious, how do you focus on the non-physical side of martial arts? What do you do when you do that? How do you define that as a distinct part of martial arts?

Talon
05-17-2006, 01:02 PM
Hey what happened to some of the posts on this thread and where is the link to Matt Thornton's video? Either things have dissapeared or my mind is going.

DonMagee
05-17-2006, 01:07 PM
It got moved to open discussion. No idea why. But that's where you will find it.

Kevin Leavitt
05-17-2006, 01:11 PM
So I am not losing my mind!

It may be a conspriacy to keep the thread count under 1000! :)

I think it relates to this whole real fighitng thing...but either way is fine with me!

Ron Tisdale
05-17-2006, 01:26 PM
You guys aren't really clued in are you? Don't you realize that the moment this thread reaches 1000 posts, the purpose of the human race will be fulfilled, and the world will end?!?!?!?!?

Jun is saving the earth by siphoning off the posts that would put us over the top!!!!

'Course, entire sections of this thread are *way* over the top....so.....

;) B,
R

Raspado
05-17-2006, 01:47 PM
I feel cheated.

Kevin Leavitt
05-17-2006, 02:29 PM
whoaa, I just hit 1000 post on aikiweb! MMM coincidence...or not???

David Mullin
05-17-2006, 05:21 PM
In the early 80's I was studing Chinese Kenpo, an Aikido man came to town, very nice guy, I don't remember where he studied but very good technique. I studied with him for about 6-7 months, and took a job as a bouncer in the only bar in town with a live band. I took 2-3 guys out per night, mostly with Aikido wrist locks and armlocks. I don't know what you call a real fight, I think a 6'3" cowboy swinging a beer pitcher at your head is a real fight. only time I did not use mostly Aikido was when the bar exploded into a small riot, 4-6 guys on each side going at it on the dance floor.
other than that it worked every time. :)

statisticool
05-17-2006, 05:58 PM
David, the techniques you successfully used to defend yourself did not really work because they lacked aliveness. ;)

Man of Aiki
05-17-2006, 10:07 PM
I first visited this forum over 3 years ago shortly after this thread first started.

It was begun by a guy who had seen two of the early UFC/MMA events where guys who called themselves 'Aikidoists' were easily dispatched by juijitsu stylists. From this, he adduced that Aikido would not work in a 'real fight'.

having seen one of the matches he was referring to, it was obvious to me that a sport begun by grapplers, on a very soft grappling surface, and with rules favoring grapplers is mostly won by.....grapplers.

It's also true that far too many Aikido schools spend all their time teaching students how to deal with traditional attacks; shomenuchi, yokomenuchi, maybe a front kick, etc.

Very few Aikido schools of the traditional sort I have seen teach students how to avoid an opponent ducking and shooting in below waist level and grabbing you around the knees, taking you down and then climbing on top of you and pounding your face into a pizza.

Which is precisely how the supposed Aikidoka in the video I saw got taken out.

Now, why is that?

Well arts that Aikido was derived from, such as Daito-Ryu Aikijutsu, was formed for use on the battlefield where weapons are present. Not too many schools of thought on warfare believe it's a good idea to try to take an enemy down to the ground and then sit on top of him when combat is going on all around you.

Many Aikido techs come from either taking on an opponent armed with a sword or a staff or knife or where the proponent had the sword or staff.

Judo/Jujitsu the way these MMA guys are practicing it depends on shooting in on an UNARMED opponent.

Yeah it's 1643 and I'm involved in a big battle on the Japanese mainland. There's a warrior on the other side over there who's been training to use that sword he's carrying since he was 5 years old. I've lost my own weapon, so now I'm gonna RUN OVER THERE AND GO LOW AND TACKLE THE GUY AROUND THE KNEES AND TAKE HIM DOWN.

Uh-huh. Suuuuuuuuure I am.

If you ended up taking an armored, weapon carrying warrior on the battle-field with your bare hands you had a far better chance of surviving if you knew aikijutsu. Trying BJJ in that situation would just get you killed.

O-Sensei developed Aikido from Daito-Ryu Aikijutsu, Kenjutsu, and Spear/Staff arts which, lest we forget, were samurai BATTLEFIELD ARTS. It was formulated from weapons techniques primarly to allow a warrior to survive an encounter with an ARMED OPPONENT.

This is why the one key thing missing from most Aikido instruction is low shoots or tackles below the waist, because on the battlefield anybody who charged an armed opponent like that died very suddenly.

Some schools have recognized this, and used Aikido principles to formulate defenses against low takedowns and below the waist tackles.

Others still content themselves with teaching students only how to avoid standup attacks, the basic strikes, mostly punches and grabs and maybe a basic front kick or two mixed in.

BJJ and other MMA centric arts were formulated on the presupposition of two UNARMED people facing each other in an equal contest. The traditional battlefield arts of Japan and China were NOT formulated on similar foundations. It was assumed always that at least ONE of the parties was armed.

Since Aikido is derived from these killing arts used on battlefields, and since very few of those ancient warriors were interested in trying shoot in and tackle armed opponents with their bare hands, it makes sense to me that this under-emphasis of dealing with that sort of attack has carried over to modern Aikido.

Man of Aiki
05-17-2006, 10:32 PM
There are several techniques in Aikido that allow a diligent practitioner to avoid waist level tackle around the waist.

Kaiten-nage (circular throw) is one I have been taught for such a situation.

Also, I would like to point out that many Aikidoka do quite a bit of training from their knees. If someone is shooting in on you and you feel yourself losing your balance, there is absolutely no rational reason whatsoever to fall backwards.

Let me repeat that.

THERE IS NO REASON WHATSOEVER TO FALL BACKWARDS.

If you are starting to lose your footing to an opponent that has shot low, drop your center and deliberately land on your knees.

It's a lot harder for an opponent to break your posture when you are on your knees and you've centered yourself. When standing, the joints he has to bend to get you to fall the way he wants so he can mount you is your knees. Once you are actually down on your knees, the next part of you he needs to get to bend so he can break your posture and mount you is your lower back.

One of the biggest parts of my early Aikido training was how to sit on the knees with an unbroken posture, then get up on to my feet while remaining centered.

The best randoris I have seen have invovled Senseis that keep their posture no matter what attack they are dealing with. I have seen Senseis knocked back who landed on their knees, did not allow their posture to be broken, continued defending themselves with throws and then got back onto their feet.

I've also had personal experience with this on the mat during randori where I started to go down from a tackle, landed on my knees and then when my right hand ended up on the back of my tackler's head and my left arm was tangled with his right arm, I instinctively pivoted on my knees and flipped him over with a kaiten-nage.

A hard training Aikidoka should be just as comfortable doing techniques on his knees as on his feet. Getting taken down to your knees should not be a huge disadvantage.

But you need to be trained and mentally prepared beforehand if you have someone shoot in and you feel yourself starting to go down, focus on keeping your posture and dropping to your knees.

Without that expectation and mental preparation, most people panic in that situation and end up on their back and in a very desperate state.

xuzen
05-17-2006, 10:36 PM
...<snip>...Bruce Lee had more fights in movies or in real life. ;)

NB: I think the word FIGHT has a rather negative connotation...In the spirit of being politically correct, I propose that in future, the word FIGHT should be replaced as RESEARCH n DEVELOPMENT... :D :D :D

Boon.

Talon
05-17-2006, 11:39 PM
Brian, thats a pretty good observation you've made there. I never really thought about it like that. It actually makes sense that going into a suwari waza posture and doing suwari waza techniques would be an option if one was proficient in it and had the proper timing to drop to their knees at the right time.

Kevin Leavitt
05-17-2006, 11:51 PM
Brian,

There are different fighting ranges. We can argue all day long about the realitive value of training at each of those ranges, but they are situationally dependent.

There are very valid reasons for training in grappling and ground fighting skills.

There are very valid reasons for training in traditional aikido methods.

I also agree with most of what Dan says about the benefits of internal training...be-grudgingly though. Dan and I differ on the realtive value of this type of training as it applies to developing an effective fighter.

However, if you intend to fight for real, I caution you against relying on traditional aikido to adequately prepare you for the full spectrum of fighting.

BJJ does a decent job at developing ground skills as the training is against fully resistive opponent within the confines of the parameters of the training.

Traditional aikido will do a good job of developing some skills in posture, ma'ai etc.

Only way I know how to figure out if your training is working for you is this. Fight/spar against a fully resistive opponent at each range.

Put on some protective gear, grab some escrima sticks at go for it. See how long you stay out of a clinch or can keep from running out of the fighitng area, or falling down and getting yourself beating down to where you can no longer defend yourself.

Put on some NHB gloves and fight empty handed. See how long you can avoid the clinch...etc, see how well Kaiten nage really works, and looks like kaiten nage when the distance is closed and wieight is uneven and being thrown around, arms are being tucked in to prevent the technique etc.

Grab a taser and have someone attack you as it was a knife. Try it concealed, have both guys have the taser.

Have a guy ambush you and take you down to the ground, with sticks, empty handed, and with a taser.

These are all scenarios, and yea there are still some limitations and "gaps" that will appear because we have to prevent people for getting seriously injured, but it is maybe the closest thing we can do to simulate various fighting ranges.

It is a good gauge in my opinion to see how you and your training might stack up.

Mine didn't. so, I went back to the drawing board and train much differently now than I used to.

I concur and have found much of what Matt said to be true. It was hard to swallow, but it is true.

Oh yea, multiple opponents. I have pretty much lost every fight in which their was multiple opponents. The best I could do was "figure 8", stack them in a line, and run for the door as in classical aikido randori. However, throw in some weapons etc...and you are going to die. Romanticize all you want about how good you are, how well you do in aikido randori...chances are though...that it is your day to die....hopefully you can do it with some dignity!

Kevin Leavitt
05-18-2006, 12:07 AM
There is a good reason to fall backwards. You didn't mean to and it just happens!

In combat and fighting you must always consider points of failure and build in redundancy.

How do you land on your knees when someone is knocking you backwards? If I am not sprawling to prevent a takedown...then I am off balance and I am doing a breakfall or rolling, or doing irimi. I can't see the physics involved at going to your knees.

If you are really on your knees, as I am picturing it. I am not going to grapple with you, but I am probably going to start muay thai kicking the crap out of you until you fall over. You have to move, recover distance and come back to a fighting posture that is mobile.

Talon
05-18-2006, 12:46 AM
Kevin.

I think that if someone goes for the double leg takedown and you go down on your knees they will go down as well (since they were allready bent over, commited and their arms were at your knee level) I don't think at that particular point hey can Muay thai kick the crap out of anyone while lying on the ground. If their arms were around your knees and you did it fast enough you could probably momentarily trap his arms between your calf and thigh if you dropped down to seiza. I agree that timing would have to be pretty good to go down on your knees in time before you get mowed down backwards from this commited attack But I do think its plausible to do. I'll be trying it at my dojo next opportunity I find.

You mentioned that that what Matt said was true. I must say as I did before that he made some valid points but there is more to martial effectiveness than what he said. Just wondering if you agreed with him that kotegashi would never work in real life. Thats basically what he said. He said it was all choriographed and would never work in a real encounter. I though chorigraphed ment both people knew and agreed on the attack and all the movements. In randori, you don't know what attack is coming and the uke doesnt know what technique is going to be executed. Thats why if youre timing sucks you'll get bonked on the head andif you don't do the technique properly the Uke will not go down (at least in our Dojo, we are quite honest with ourselves, no one just magically flies when the technique isnt there to support it) To me that type of practice is not really choriographed any more. What are your thoughts on this?

Kevin Leavitt
05-18-2006, 01:45 AM
Paul,

Alot of the takedown (shoot) depends on the skill of the participates and the parity between them, so hard to say. If it is an experienced pair, going to the knees does not work well. If you go to your knees, the guy shooting has just fixed you in place and will "shoulder" into you hip up and around into a side control posture. If your timing is not matched with his and you go to your knees prematurely (as I pictured in the above example), he will disengage and you are now sitting there staring at his waist...so naturally he will go to a kick to off balance you then attack again if warranted.

If he is shooting and you cannot sprawl before he catches you, it is best to ride him down do a backroll, or go to the guard and regain control.


Kotegaeshi works just fine provided the parameters of the fight. I use it all the time on the unexperienced and wrestlers. In weapon or asssumed weapons scenarios it works fine to. Talk to the number of police officers that have used it on the job.

Again, Matt is more right than he is wrong, but not entirely represetative of everything that is martial.

What is important is to not focus on the little things he is talking about such as scenarios, skills, techniques..but on the big picture dealing with the dynamics of fights, emotions, planning for failure, redundancy built in to your training, being in shape, and full resistance. Attitude, spirit, and determination go a long way too. He understands the essence of what is important I think.

The issue with aikido is not that it is choreographed, and as most practice it, it is a partnership in cooperation with tightly controlled and defined parameters/boundaries that we perform the techniques in. The purpose of doing that is to better understand the principles of dynamic movment and to build good habits. Nothing wrong with training like this.

The problem we have is in thinking that we can directly transfer this over to fighting. Fighting and full resistance introduces other factors that we have filtered out in the aikido dojo.

We deal with this all the time in training for Combat in the Army.

Training must be phased in a Crawl, Walk, Run.

My Good friend and instructor Jimmy Sorrentino reminded me of this the other day!

Take the end state of using your rifle to kill someone in combat.

You start out in the classroom teaching Basic marksmanship skillls.

You moved to a range where you fire for accuracy in a controlled environment.

Then you stay on the range and train things such as reflexive fire where there is limited movement.

Eventually, you culminate in a live fire where you are under a open free area with others moving around you...still some control, but more room for error.

We then train in things like combatives, room clearing, use simunitions. etc.

So the point is, if you want to train to be proficient for real...it is very involved and very indepth. Takes a great deal of time and energy to be well rounded. Aikido won't do it. Neither will BJJ. The truth is that most people only train on a narrow perspective of what they enjoy and have the time, money, and the availability of instruction.

Frankly even though I am in the Army and do this type of stuff all the time, I and my soldiers also don't have enough time to do everything that we need to do.

Oh yea...coreographed...all training is coreopgraphed to a degree. You have to, there are just vary degrees of this. You layer it in different ways to keep it safe, and to allow for you to train different aspects. It is simply impossible to train without rules. However using an overlap or layering process, you can join it all together and create someone that is somewhat a "complete package".

Raspado
05-18-2006, 09:10 AM
"Put on some NHB gloves and fight empty handed. See how long you can avoid the clinch...etc, see how well Kaiten nage really works, and looks like kaiten nage when the distance is closed and wieight is uneven and being thrown around, arms are being tucked in to prevent the technique etc."

and..

"How do you land on your knees when someone is knocking you backwards? If I am not sprawling to prevent a takedown...then I am off balance and I am doing a breakfall or rolling, or doing irimi. I can't see the physics involved at going to your knees.

If you are really on your knees, as I am picturing it. I am not going to grapple with you, but I am probably going to start muay thai kicking the crap out of you until you fall over. You have to move, recover distance and come back to a fighting posture that is mobile."

Awesome responses Kevin. Brian, I hate to tell you he's right. No way these will work. If by chance you get somewhat of a kaiten nage on me, my free arm will grab your outside leg, or I'll hook your leg with my own leg. As for the kneeling position...see above.

Raspado
05-18-2006, 09:13 AM
Kevin, as always--great responses. When you get back from Germany, come to Tampa!

Talon
05-18-2006, 09:31 AM
Thank you for that response Kevin!
It was very well written and to the point. I must agree with you completely on basically all points.

Matt did have a bunch of good points and I stated that before. His arrogant attitude against traditional matial arts and techniques (when he talked about Steven Segal's kotegeashi being only good in movies and completely useless in the real environment) is where I had to dissagree. I haven't seen his training methods but he did mention that they wont go to sparring right away and will have to learn some techniques. Well if they will have to learn techniques first, then I really don't see the difference here. The basic building blocks have to be there. He mentioned that techniques like that (cotegeashi) are in a pattern and therefore have no timing. Again, I haven't seen what he teaches for techniques, but if its a technique obviously it has a start,end and a middle section, and thats a pattern.

I agree with him that training in a situation where you dont know how your going to get attacked and resistance is important but some aikido dojos get to that point when we're done with the basics. It may not be competitive, but its sincere and random. Its absolutely true that if you know whats coming and what technique you will do before hand, your brain does not have to think. We see this all the time when we go to a more random scenario and people freeze or try to force a technique that is not appropriate for the type of attack and body positioning. This of course can be improved with lots of practice. I know at one point we were practicing more random attacks and techniqies and you could see a huge improvement in all partiipants. However unfortunately, the seisei was not happy in some of us as far as how sloppy our techniques were getting and we went back to the basics for a while. I do think that you need to know your techniques in and out and feel comfortable with them before you start training in a random pattern of attacks and techniques and we're striving for that. Some Aikido dojos never get to the point and I do agree that this can cause a problem when a random attack occurs.

Talon
05-18-2006, 09:41 AM
Mike...if he somewhat gets a kaiten nage on you, youre probably right, but if he doesn't "somewhat" but actually does a proper kaiten nage, you don't have a free hand (its away from him) and you're off balanced. A proper kaiten nage will send you at a 45 degree angle from your original attack and your arm thats up will pe pushed towards your opposite shoulder. When that is done properly, you wount be grabbing onto anything but the ground.

Of course we come back to the same question. Can it realistaically be done properly?

Raspado
05-18-2006, 12:30 PM
hmmm.. I still disagree Paul. I'm visualizing it in my head and I still think I can grab on to nage. I'll try it tonight and let you know.

Kevin Leavitt
05-18-2006, 02:09 PM
I was thinking about this today (kaiten nage) and really alot of the techniques we do in aikido....

The way we deal with distance and closing it in aikido is much different than say in BJJ. I am not saying it is necessarily wrong.

I go over closing distance with my guys all the time. If you have no weapons you have more freedom to close like a traditional sport grappler, if you introduce weapons things tend to change up a little.

Kaiten nage has not proven to work very well for me in the traditional sense, although tonight I worked on a GI/Judo type takedown which is very close to kaiten nage from a close distance.

Again though, that is sport jiu jitsu. Introduce kicks, punches, etc...it changes the dynamic. Katen nage does not work well from the traditional sense. Things tend to go to the clinch.

Introduce the threat of weapons, kaiten nage in the traditional sense starts working a little better...BUT...

It is all about closing distance and what assumptions you are making. You need to try different things with fully resistant uke without strikes, with strikes, one person with weapon, the other with weapon, both with weapons...lots of parameters.

That is the only way you know what works at what fightng range, by introducing different assumptions about the distance and how it will be closed.

Ma'ai is very important. We tend to practice ma'ai in aikido at bokken range, which is good for teaching principles of aikido....but you really need to experiment with closing the distance..there is a whole art to that!

Talon
05-18-2006, 02:19 PM
Good comments guys. Again, I'm not saying that all people will be able to pull of a kaiten nage and/or make it work. All I know is when I'm put in a proper Kaitenage, I really have to concentrate on proper ukeme because the angle that I'm thrown at is very akward and many times I loosme my balance to such a degree that I have to do a bad break fall instead of a front roll. Whe a Kaitenage is done fast and short, I flop like a bag on the ground. I just can't see being able or even attempting to grab anyone at that time. It takes great concentration to land in a way that I can still roll our of it or not hit the ground too hard. Then again. Thats me, perhaps you guys do Kaiten nage differently. And again, the question is not if it will be effective but is it possible/likely to get your opponent into a proper kaiten nage in the first place.

Kevin Leavitt
05-18-2006, 02:22 PM
The problem isn't with the kaiten nage, it is getting there to that position...closing the distance properly. So much can happen...so many mistakes and counters that it is difficult, at least for me to get there..again, I practice alot with out the assumption of weapons. Weapons can change things up.

Michael Douglas
05-18-2006, 02:33 PM
I never thought that Katiten nage could really work, never.
In fact, it looks to me like one of the worst choices of attempted move from (any) the starting position.
I was always very confused as to why kaiten-nage was included in Aikido at all, when lots of parts of the standard aikido techniques do appear effective.

Kevin Leavitt
05-18-2006, 02:57 PM
Oh I think it is very useful. Principally it shows us quite a bit. In practice, it gets modified, but it is very useful for showing us how to move. I could show you some BJJ throws that work on the principal of kaitenage.

My old aikido instructor used to show us how to use it against knives and escrima sticks from the outside of the arm, moving under and across and back out again. Very neat stuff...works well with sticks.

Not sure how you perform it in your dojo, but I could see if you only practiced it one way...it would seem useless. Again, it is all about closing the distance and the setup..not the technique itself.

Aristeia
05-18-2006, 03:13 PM
Kotegaeshi works just fine provided the parameters of the fight. I use it all the time on the unexperienced and wrestlers.

I got it on both a BJJ blue belt and a BJJ brown belt last night (ok, so the brown belt gave it to me).

Re Kaiten nage - Like Mr, Douglas I used to think it was a fancy schmancy never use it technique. But then I found in Aikido class, everytime something went haywire and we got into a scuffle I would end up with the head down and access to an arm = kaiten nage.

I think it's very useful, the trick is, as Kevin says, setting it up. I don't ever go looking for it in grappling but sometimes it pops up and it works well. For me it's a technique of opportunity if you like.

Man of Aiki
05-18-2006, 05:06 PM
I understand where you are coming from Kevin.

My background is more towards Aikido as a practical self-defense art, not the more New Age 'drop the person with the mystical Ki energy' type that so often is seen.

For a fight with a person on the street, many of the Aikido techs. I've learned will work fine. I'm not gonna give a person multiple chances to shoot in on me in fight.

It's true if I let the same person shoot in several times, after a few times he's going to force me to do something else.

You seem to come from more of a sport-oriented BJJ background where "OK that worked once, and that technique worked once, now what are you going to do when he shoots in for the 3rd time?

In a street situation if the same person got to shoot in on me for a 3rd time, I must have really blown the waza the first two times.

I don't train in it like a sport and I don't have teachers that teach it like a sport; it's not a 2 out of 3 deal.

On the not falling backwards thing during a shoot attempt. There are plenty of things trained Aikidoka can do to keep a shoot attempt from reaching the point where the attacker is now firmly got both arms around you and is beginning to try to topple you.

IF it gets that far, most people panic and either try to spin out of it (big mistake) or hammer the attacker on the back (pretty much useless). He only needs a second or two to compromise your balance and take you down.

If you're trained and mentally prepared, lets say despite everything you did, he's shot in and he's now settled in with his arms around you and you have less than a second to do something or you are going backwards.

I'm just introducing a suggestion here. Instead of waiting to be taken backwards, why not intentionally and forcefully drop your entire bodyweight down onto your knees? Not only does it take away his advantage of being below your center of gravity, it gives you a stronger base from which to fend him off.

If you train diligently in suwari waza, this certainly is a viable option and it should not be dismissed out of hand.

I have not said anywhere in any way that training in ground skills and learning to defend yourself from your back is not necessary.

What I am questioning is the assured attitude I see that "Once a guy shoots in on you, as an Aikidoist you're done for. It's time to switch from Aikido to something else."

If I do end up on my back, certianly I'm going to use the BJJ I've learned so far to defend myself.

I just question the idea that Aikidoka don't have ability or techniques to fend off a low shoot effectively.

Aristeia
05-18-2006, 05:19 PM
I'm just introducing a suggestion here. Instead of waiting to be taken backwards, why not intentionally and forcefully drop your entire bodyweight down onto your knees? Not only does it take away his advantage of being below your center of gravity, it gives you a stronger base from which to fend him off.


Find someone with a decent shot and put it to the test. This looks to me like something that sounds ok in theory but is not so great in applicaiton.

My concern would be, if he's already in that position he's driving forward. As you drop to your knees he continues to drive forward. Even if you manage to land in a strong seiza, he's driving forward and may well drive your torso back over your ankles endangering them.

Like I say - find someone with a shoot and test it.
I'm left asking the same question I always ask myself in these threads. Good reliable defences to the shoot exist. They are proven and effective when done well. Why do people feel the need to ignore them and theorise about much more low % possibilities (if indeed they can be made to work at all) just so they can say "see we now have an *Aikido* response". Why not just take the response that already works and use that? (I personally think the sprawl is very aiki anyway)

Mark Freeman
05-18-2006, 05:38 PM
On Kaitenage, most people accept that ikkyo is a valid technique in a 'real' situation. Why not convert ikkyo into kaitenage by sliding the elbow hand and cutting down to create the drop? Just a thought. But then why try to make kaitenage or any other technique work in the first place.

On a low shoot, I have had no practical practice of a defence against this type of attack, but what comes to mind is if someone is going for your lower body what is to stop you kicking them full in the face?? Not aiki, maybe, but effective, I don't know. I don't do the fighting thing, but I can't imagine trying to use ineffective attempts of any sort if it came down to a 'serious' self defence situation.

No doubt those of you who have more experience in this type of training will put me right :)

regards
Mark

Talon
05-18-2006, 05:51 PM
I think a knee to the face would be the most obvious thing. However from numerous UFC fights I've seen, most times it doesnt work, due to timing and accuracy of the knee and at that time a double leg takedown ends up being an easy single leg takedown if you know what I mean.

Kevin Leavitt
05-18-2006, 05:57 PM
Brian wrote:

If you're trained and mentally prepared, lets say despite everything you did, he's shot in and he's now settled in with his arms around you and you have less than a second to do something or you are going backwards.

I'm just introducing a suggestion here. Instead of waiting to be taken backwards, why not intentionally and forcefully drop your entire bodyweight down onto your knees? Not only does it take away his advantage of being below your center of gravity, it gives you a stronger base from which to fend him off.

I can't think of anything worse you could possibly do! You just committed suicide.

No my background is not primarily sport BJJ. 8 years of karate, 10 years of aikido, 10 years of Army Training, 2 years of Modern Army Combatives, 1 year of BJJ in parallel to M.A.C. BJJ is our basis, and we don't take a sport approach to it.

Here's the deal Brian... I am picturing you are making some assumptions about what real attacks are. It is not a sport attack, or an aikido kamae...it is an ambush that you are not ready for and he has picked the time, place, and conditions. Your response is not one of proactivity but of reactivity.

In most real attacks you do not have the iniative of the advantage...your opponent does. He has sized you up, found a percieved weakness, and is exploiting it. If it happens to be a shoot...it is too late for you to do anything other than react and recover most of the time.

Therefore, you sprawl if you are lucky. You duck down and clinch if you are lucky, you go backwards, separate from him, breakfall, come up in a recovery guarded posture and regain fighting stance if you are lucky. You breakfall, roll backwards and come up in fighting stance...worse case...he fixes you and you go to the guard and start to sweep and regain control.

You do not fall to your knees! Please don't do this! Try it out like Michael says.

Nobody said aikidoka don't have the ability to fend off. I named several things above that are in the aikido vitae.

You have to be very careful with your assumptions. One thing I don't like about aikido is that it is principle oriented in nature so we always train with a certain amount of ettiquette. You cannot transfer this to what will happen in reality. We don't, at least I haven't, trained much where we plan for failure in a fight in aikido.

If you are the attackee, you probably have failed and the attacker already has dominance....training from this point on is very important for reality. It ain't a sport thing...it is a reality thing.

Aristeia
05-18-2006, 05:57 PM
Mark, a good shot is designed to disrupt your balance (base). An attempt at kicking will only put that balance more in jeopordy. Couple this with the fact that someone who is good at shooting will not be diving in head first (like say a rugby tackle) but will be maintaining their torso in an upright posture and protecting their head and the kicking option, while tempting, is not ideal.

Kevin Leavitt
05-18-2006, 06:03 PM
also, Michael points out something that is very important when you start talking about reality fighting...percentages. You cannot predict what will occur in a fight and what techniques will work. In DO arts you strive to perfect yourself over a long time. In reality, you go with "safe and effective". simple things that work for you as a "high percentage" of success.

i.e. I would rarely try shionage in a real situation. Doesn't mean that it is not a valid technique, just means there are much simplier things that work more effectively. Kotegaeshi comes to mind. You don't need a lot of breadth to be effective..just a few things that work in most situations, most of the time.

We lose sight of this when we train in the DO arts as our focus is to increase our overall skill and to become better and holilistic. Combat effectiveness does not require this level of expertise.

Kevin Leavitt
05-18-2006, 06:07 PM
Michael wrote:

Mark, a good shot is designed to disrupt your balance (base). An attempt at kicking will only put that balance more in jeopordy. Couple this with the fact that someone who is good at shooting will not be diving in head first (like say a rugby tackle) but will be maintaining their torso in an upright posture and protecting their head and the kicking option, while tempting, is not ideal.



Yeah, you need to be moving your feet and getting out of the way with your center and trying to regain posture in one of a few different ways. Kicking only causes you to be stationary. This is assuming that the shoot has already defeated your ability to place an effective kick. If it is someone that is stupid and has no skill and he shoots within kicking range...then all means i'd kick the crap out of him!

On that note, if he shoots and leads with his head and does not close distance properly...a guillotine works wonders!

We are not proposing that you default to the ground. Michael and I are both assuming that the shoot is effective and you cannot avoid it any other way but to evade with a sprawl or a breakfall.

Mark Freeman
05-18-2006, 06:12 PM
Mark, a good shot is designed to disrupt your balance (base). An attempt at kicking will only put that balance more in jeopordy. Couple this with the fact that someone who is good at shooting will not be diving in head first (like say a rugby tackle) but will be maintaining their torso in an upright posture and protecting their head and the kicking option, while tempting, is not ideal.

Thanks Michael, that puts it into some form of perspective for me, as I said I am ignorant of this attack. I agree that kicking is not ideal as stability is much greater with both legs on the ground.
I really ought to start watching more of this fighting stuff you guys are always talking about, so as not to sound so daft in this thread.

regards
Mark

Kevin Leavitt
05-18-2006, 06:18 PM
Watching! Ya gotta start doing it!

I used to watch alot of UFC before I got involved in what I am doing now. It didn't make much sense to me as I did not have the base to break it down and analyze it properly. Ya have to watch it, but you also have to do it as well. It is not until you start making the mistakes and going back to the drawingboard do you start understanding and figuring things out.

Aristeia
05-18-2006, 07:17 PM
What Kevin said. I remember when I first started convincing my aikido friends to come over and watch the ufc with me. I'd been dabbling in BJJ for a little while. Every time I let out a "oohhh!" as someone nearly got into position for a sub, they'd be looking at me like "what. What just happened. "

Upyu
05-18-2006, 07:25 PM
Mark, a good shot is designed to disrupt your balance (base). An attempt at kicking will only put that balance more in jeopordy. Couple this with the fact that someone who is good at shooting will not be diving in head first (like say a rugby tackle) but will be maintaining their torso in an upright posture and protecting their head and the kicking option, while tempting, is not ideal.

Heh, only if you kick for "kicking"'s sake, which is what a lot of kickboxers do.
Most kicks that you see in this day and age, (and that goes for kyokushin, kickboxing, strikers in general), throw the bodies connections out of whack when they execute the kick. That is, they disrupt their own balance.

If you can move the lower body without compromising the upper body's center of balance, you might find you can have a solid base to "kick" from, and even if you miss, the shooter has a hard time taking you down ;)
Plus you get the added bonus of a spine loaded kick if it lands. :)

'Course, you have to train this particular skill, but I've found more than a couple grapplers that get confused when they couldn't take me down :D (Even though I was technically on one leg when they made the shoot, and no I didn't sprawl out of it)

And people thoughtt the sumo ceremonial leg raising was done so that they don't fall over when they take a crap :D

*edit
By the by,
I thought I'd mention that the whole reason that a good shoot takes someone down is simply because they're focused on keeping themselves in balance/proper posture as they go through the movement. The shooter's axis/spine/core (whatever you want to call it) displaces the kickers' axis, which is what causes the unbalancing effect, which knocks you on your ass.
Buuut, if you get someone that's got a more trained/solid core than the shooter, well, the shooter's in for a surprise when he tries to take them down. It's like slamming into a dense rubber pole, staked to the ground :p

DH
05-18-2006, 07:43 PM
Hah

Even more fun when its a 6' solid 210 pounder hitting a 5' 7"150 pounder and getting planted or bouncing off. I love the comments later. "He's so strong."...
I think "Yup, you keep telling yourself that.

Hard rubber is a good term, I use it myself.

But of course you know...you only learn body-connnection by fighting...er ...right?
That solo stuff is for fairies Rob. Do you feel all granola crunchy in your bell bottoms? :D

Me

Upyu
05-18-2006, 07:50 PM
Dan, could you pretty please package that 210 pounder and fedex him to Japan for me :D
Though we did get a new guy in the aunkai recently, about 190lb, all muscle. The solo exercises are excruciating for him now...but I think training with him will become excruciating for me, once his body starts to get connected :p
I prefer blueberries with my granola thank you :D

DH
05-18-2006, 08:00 PM
Actually I am trying to beg and cash in any remaining husband points I can scrounge up -to get to Japan again
And in between classes of my fist love-Koryu weapons- pay you hooligans a visit. I promise you we will have a blast and laugh out loud.

me

kaishaku
05-18-2006, 08:30 PM
I'm just introducing a suggestion here. Instead of waiting to be taken backwards, why not intentionally and forcefully drop your entire bodyweight down onto your knees? Not only does it take away his advantage of being below your center of gravity, it gives you a stronger base from which to fend him off.

One of the first things I learned in BJJ class was an escape from side control that ended with gaining a side control of your own by applying a double leg takedown to a kneeling partner. What I'm saying is, going to your knees isn't going to stop the takedown. It'll still work just fine whether he grabs you by the calves or by the thighs, or whether he lifts and turns or just drives through. I imagine that going to your knees might mean that he'll end up on top of you in the mount or half mount instead of the guard though.

Man of Aiki
05-18-2006, 09:01 PM
So you're saying if he's got the shoot locked in and is about to topple you dropping down onto your knees is suicide?

OK, got it.

So letting him drop me onto my back and mount me is a much safer option?

Let's just say I'm skeptical.

kaishaku
05-18-2006, 10:04 PM
So you're saying if he's got the shoot locked in and is about to topple you dropping down onto your knees is suicide?

OK, got it.

So letting him drop me onto my back and mount me is a much safer option?

Let's just say I'm skeptical.

No, a sprawl or whizzer is the best option, in that order. Or so I hear. :) Pulling guard would be the best option once you hit the deck though, because from there you can defend and attempt to sweep to the top position.

There's a whole category of fighting style called "sprawl and brawl." I think this would have to be your gameplan if you're really attached to standing up. Sprawl to avoid the takedown, and as they attempt to re-establish base, take balance and throw via whichever appendage you can grab.

Then again this is assuming your assailant is someone who's wrestled in high school, say, and knows how to perform a takedown. I suppose a random drunk might just charge in bent over 90 degrees in a perfect position for kaiten. :confused:

Kevin Leavitt
05-19-2006, 01:38 AM
Dan/Rob,

I think our starting point of where and how the fight starts is different. I have no doubts that someone could conceivably stand on one leg, also have no doubts that a tai chi master could root himself and use his "internal abilitites".

There are so many assumptions that we make when we define in our minds the conditions and situation surrounding a fight. I think most people have a skewed perception.

You have to plan for failure both physically, emotionally, and mentally. The best laid plans in rehersals or training go out the window when the first round is fired.

If you have not prepared yourself for this, then I don't care how long you have studied or how proficient you are in the dojo, you are not prepared to fight for your life.

Most BJJ guys make the same assumptions by the way about fights. It is natural as we tend to build dojo habits and have necessary ettiquette in dojo to allow for a safe and productive environment for all.

Not insinuating that Rob or Dan don't understand this. Just pointing out a current theme I see when people say "well if he did this, i'd do that". "or one time a grappler shot on me and I did this and it worked". It may not equate to reality...and that is where I am coming from when I am addressing these things.

On another note. I learned how to punch years ago in the traditional martial art way. My Vale Tudo instructor showed me how to fight differently. It was totally contrary to everything I had learned, weight not distributed evenly....more looping punches...what you guys would call external power.

What Liddell...he punches that way because it works...not because it is necessarily principally correct on proper alignment etc...but because it works in reality.

Hence...that is where Matt Thornton is coming from.

It is good to study correct use of body, posture, ki and all that...but, in reality you find a 70 to 90 percent solution that works...and that is what you go with.

Upyu
05-19-2006, 01:49 AM
You have to plan for failure both physically, emotionally, and mentally. The best laid plans in rehersals or training go out the window when the first round is fired.


I think Dan would be the first to agree with that, and I'll jump on that bandwagon in a heartbeat.

I just think the "core" of the training needs to be comprised of exercises that you specifically tailor to yourself so that you move as efficiently as possible in training.

Then, you go into the playbox, balls to the wall, and see how much you can keep it together.

Cuz you've rewired your body to move in this "special" way in daily life as well, it carries over even when the shit hits the fan.

The standing on one leg thing was an example. Btw, I didn't mean that you stand there resisting the shoot. Just that, in transition, when the shooter goes for the leg and expects it to give, it doesn't.
You don't fall, he gets in a bad position, and in the next moment you have the upper hand :)

I agree with you on people yakking about "oh I would've done this or that" tho. All that counts is what works at that moment. :D

Like Dan said before, internal skills and fighting are two different things. But, they can be combined. Its up to the person to do so.

Keith R Lee
05-19-2006, 06:45 AM
No, a sprawl or whizzer is the best option, in that order. Or so I hear. :) Pulling guard would be the best option once you hit the deck though, because from there you can defend and attempt to sweep to the top position.


Keith, you forgot to include knees to the face at the end of that list! ;)

Michael Douglas
05-25-2006, 11:43 AM
Would someone please explain to me what a 'whizzer' is exactly,
it sounds great.

Kevin Leavitt
05-25-2006, 12:47 PM
Check out this link for info on the Whizzer.

http://www.usawct.org/coachescorner/whizzer.html

DH
05-25-2006, 05:48 PM
What Liddell...he punches that way because it works...not because it is necessarily principally correct on proper alignment etc...but because it works in reality.

Hence...that is where Matt Thornton is coming from.

It is good to study correct use of body, posture, ki and all that...but, in reality you find a 70 to 90 percent solution that works...and that is what you go with.




Kevin, Kevin

I guess the only difference is who's reality you are implying I am out of touch with? I'm a terrible writer.....but I am beginning to think you are an even worse reader ;) I just keep repeating myself.

Why do you suppose I run, lift and train on heavy bags, and wear MMA gloves with no gi? To visualize Ki forces in fairy land? Do you think I am doing Ki exercise while standing on one leg and dreaming they fall down? Maybe...just maybe...you simply don't know what Rob and I are talking about. I am quite familiar with methods and reasons to set-up and connect. Head-hunting is a passion of mine.
You don't know or can conceptualize how a connected body can move to connect to that same head but do it in a different way. Knock-out power is knock-out power. Speed is speed. No fault or criticism there. Pactical speed and experience and reflexes to get you to effectively head-hunt are needed as well. But I do not accept that there is only one way there. Why? I know better. Many folks compartmentalize things they don't know and do the "Oh I know that...it wont work." Been-there-done-that." I've seen behind the curtain and continue to practice a different way to move.

Anyway, no disrespsect. I like and accept the sceptisism- not the cognative dissonence. At least acknowledge that we are debating the same point; practical utility! Once we get past that, we can debate the means to the end.

No one is standing still, and "holding" a posture. We're talking about fighting, flow, set-ups and counters, responsive transitions etc.. There are exercises that strengthen structure and connection of your body for real time, quick responsive power, so that when someone hits any one part... they hit the whole. Its part of that rubber coated steel feel. It also significantly adds to speed.
All we/me have discussed here............is.........fighting aspects. The practical means to better control, knockout, break, or otherwise have someone dominated as quickly as possible. We all know it doesn't always work out so neat and clean, ;) but internal training is another great tool to get me there.
No matter what it is you, me or anyone on the planet is doing-internal skills will improve it. No one has to do it. It just helps.

There just good training skills bud.
Techniques, are more tools for the tool box.
Principles, are ways to use them.
Internal skills? They change- you.
And You?
ARE the tool box.

Cheers and happy Memorial day weekend to those in the states.
Dan

Roy Dean
05-25-2006, 06:11 PM
I'd still love to see some examples. YouTube is a great service for showing rather than explaining...

Roy

Demetrio Cereijo
05-26-2006, 05:18 AM
Roy,

Something like "how to avoid kotegaeshi" and "how to counter rokkyo attempt with mae ukemi"?

That clip is "pure aiki".

DudSan
05-26-2006, 08:08 AM
Hi friends.

Aikido works well on real life. I have had some experiences and I will share them here.

One was very funny. A relative was drunkard and he grabbed my wrist strongly, urging me to sit on his legs like if I were a girl. I was surprised and even amused on his blindness. Then I just made a Nikyo BUT without injuring his wrist at all, only to make his hand to slipper. He kept feeling hapy, he didnīt noticed that I had made a technique on him, and I was happy too. No fight.

Another two times were more dramatic. The first time I was drunk, so I donīt remember HOW the problem really started. I only know that I grabbed someone by the head and I twisted his neck, making him falling to the ground. It was all, then my friends took me away from the place. I think that the guy didnīt sufered too much damage, but I didnīt see him after the throw. I left.

In the second one, I was in another party, and a gay (yes, a homosexual) touched me improperly. I applied to him a Irimi, and he did stand up from the floor and attacked me, without any kind of technique. He was obviously untrained. I made to him another throw (a Kokyu I think). And incredibly he rose again and attacked. I made to him a THIRD IRIMI and I thought: 'this jerk wonīt get up'. Man, he did! What a hero! He must have been really drugged. I even felt some pity at this moment, after seeing him three times knocking the floor this way, without training, and charging again and again without the hope of wining. I didnīt like this situation at all. He was not strong, he was very slim in fact, and with a feminoid complexion (he was gay, remember, almost a travesty) therefore I assume Today that his resistance was due to drugs. I was stronger than him, and all my throws were well executed. Honestly I felt like an abuser, and like a real bad Aikidoka, fighting with someone weaker than me due to my ego.

Then I tried a Kote Gaeshi but he grabbed my body and resisted. I couldnīt throw him and I was astonished at his resistance. I donīt remember how the fight ended. I guess that I threw him (another Kokyu if I am not wrong) for a last time and then went away, with him lying on the floor. But I donīt like fights at all, and specially THIS fight is a bad memory. Persons must had looked at me as an abuser in this party. I felt myself a complete abuser too, and Today I am ashamed of what I did. It was totally against the spirit of Aikido. I made the techniques of Aikido well, but I wasnīt and Aikidoka at all when doing this mess. I have even felt sometimes the urge to seek that man and ask him to forgive me for the techniques I applied to him, which were really tough, and he was a slim person. I even sometimes worry if he had some internal injury after this fight. But I donīt know how to find him, and I even fear for the consequences.

Fighting is not a funny thing. If someone wants to learn Aikido for fighting, FORGET IT.

All these experiences were while people were drugging or drinking around me. Best Aikido technique: avoid these places. Not to be there. I wish I would have never been in that party.

The last two times I had problems: once I was having a beer (again!) and a couple of drunkards started an argument against me. One of them was the leading voice, the another guy was just trying to calm the first one. I defused the situation and I turned my back. I could abandon at that time, but my big ego made me to turn my face to him again and telling him something (the big Martial Artist could not leave with humility) so the drunkard reacted with a speed that I found Today to be incredible: He hitted my cheek with his open hand in a move that I couldnīt perceive at all. It was a lightning. Luckily it wasnīt very hard, maybe due to his own drunkenness. But it was fast, at least for me.

Nevertheless, he made a mistake: he let his hand hanging near my face after the punch. So I grabbed his fingers with my both hands and I grounded him (not a special technique). Then I had the thought of kicking his head, but I desisted and I let him there.

The another man didnīt move.

All these fights are bull c r a p. They make persons to waste time. Many people come to martial arts expecting to learn how to fight. Why not trying to learn how NOT to fight? Fighting is the worst idea that a human being can have. If you like fights, you have never fought on real life. I donīt like at all these experiences, and I hope never fighting again, cause I donīt like injuring human beings (and besides one can get injured too).

Only once I did a good physical action. Two young boys were molesting childrens in a park, near the kindergarten of my kid. I requested them for their attitude, and one of them, very athletic, fit, young and sporty, did kick at my head with a beautiful Mae Geri or something like that. By instinct (I naver thought what I was doing) I grabbed his ankle, I twisted his foot to right with a half Tenkan and twisted again his ankle against the left side, breaking his momentum, with a Tenkan Ushiro. He felt down like a sac of potatoes, and stayed on the floor looking at me with incredulous eyes. He didnīt suffered damage, I think, but was surprised. Well, maybe his ankle was resented, but he didnīt groan or complained at all.

Again the another pal stayed with armed crossed. I was lucky.

My experience?

a) Places with alcohol and drugs are BAD.
b) Fighting is ALWAYS bad.
c) Aikido works like every other martial art.
d) One can be surprised by a punch, like it hapened to me.
e) Sometimes techniques donīt work, like the failed Kote Gaeshi I mentioned. Just break the feed back loop and make another thing.
f) Persons can be really resistant under the effect of drugs.
g) Not every fight ends on the floor for both of the parties.

I could keep telling conclussions, but I think is enough.

A Budo blessing
DudSan
PS: Donīt fight, unless with Love and Peace.

Ron Tisdale
05-26-2006, 08:54 AM
Hi Douglas,

Thanks for that.

Best,
Ron

Kevin Leavitt
05-26-2006, 10:51 AM
Dan Wrote:

Kevin, Kevin

I guess the only difference is who's reality you are implying I am out of touch with? I'm a terrible writer.....but I am beginning to think you are an even worse reader I just keep repeating myself.

Why would I imply anything concerning you. I don't know you so it would not be proper for me to assume anything without really knowing you or having never worked with you. So no I am not implying anything at all.

In fact I on several occassion clarify this very point in my post to make sure it is not taken as an implication. For example from my post in #870:

Not insinuating that Rob or Dan don't understand this. Just pointing out a current theme I see when people say "well if he did this, i'd do that".

like I have said, I will believe it when I see it and experience it. It is really as simple as that. Keeps my life very simple and easy.

Kevin Leavitt
05-26-2006, 10:52 AM
Good post Douglas...thanks for sharing.

Kevin Leavitt
05-26-2006, 10:56 AM
Dan wrote:

Anyway, no disrespsect. I like and accept the sceptisism- not the cognative dissonence. At least acknowledge that we are debating the same point; practical utility! Once we get past that, we can debate the means to the end.

Cool. First we need to agree on what practical utility means though! A hard subject to define when talking empty hand. It is a wide field. I agree first we must agree on that. Maybe that is the difference in our view points...don't know.

Roy Dean
05-26-2006, 12:00 PM
Demetrio,

Yes, exactly! I think it's very aiki also, even if it was "submission grappling."


I'd just like to see a 6' solid 210 pounder hitting a 5' 7"150 pounder and getting planted or bouncing off, just like I've read about. Just like the Gracies knew during the filming of Gracie in Action 1 and 2, that showing is so much more persuasive than talking or writing, at least in this realm.


Roy

Demetrio Cereijo
05-26-2006, 12:32 PM
Roy,

Your clip is something anyone who claims Aikido doesn't work should view.

But, as you say, it's a "subgrappling match": no hakamas, spontaneous environment, "competition", etc. all those things that make "self image based" martial artists to say "that's not Aiki", and also all those things that make "performance based" martial artists to say the "that's not Aiki" too.

Same people, different clothes, but both types looking for external validation of themselves.

DH
05-26-2006, 12:47 PM
Demetrio,

Yes, exactly! I think it's very aiki also, even if it was "submission grappling."

I'd just like to see a 6' solid 210 pounder hitting a 5' 7"150 pounder and getting planted or bouncing off, just like I've read about. Just like the Gracies knew during the filming of Gracie in Action 1 and 2, that showing is so much more persuasive than talking or writing, at least in this realm.


Roy

My smaller guys have never asked to see a film of themselves to believe what they are doing. I don't think the Gracies needed to see one of themselves either. Training tends to answer questions.

I do suppose that having read about it on the net before actually seeing the Gracies would have caused just as much static.
Having read about it but not having seen systema caused static.
And when E.J Harrison went to Japan and was told about this he said the same.
Then he felt it. And Draeger? And Bluming?

Of course Everyone doubted the skills of Takeda
and then later Ueshiba
All of the above using various levels and methods of internal skills
And everyone who doubted was?.........................Wrong.

What we are talkiing about is older and has an established background. And ...so it goes

Dan

DudSan
05-26-2006, 01:03 PM
Thanks friends. I have this feeling against violence, and I love AIkido precisely because of itīs non violent charachter.

I am just afraid when persons come to Aikido looking for being skilled in fighting. There is no need for that. With time and experience I have came to believe that nothing is more easy than fighting, and that no one needs to train in a martial art 7 years for fighting, because fighting is just pure ANIMAL (no human) instinct arousing from the worst side of our nature. So why worrying so much about being good fighters when instinct will arise anyway and the human being will debase to a lower creature? No need for thoughts at this level, only reflex violence.

So martial arts are not for fight. They are for self improvement. Persons who come to martial arts hoping how to become beter fighters are deluding themselves and missing the real treasure that martial arts are.

But for the persons interested in knowing if Aikido train your reflexes enough as to be capable to react properly on a self defense situation, I say, from my own experience, yes, it does. But too does Karate, Wing Tsun, etc. People can learn Self Defense there. But if they are going to come to Aikidoīs lines, they must come to seek for the Real Essence of our art, which is the Love of God that Ueshiba Sensei felt on his heart, pouring over all creation with a spirit of compassion. A love that can change this world, as O Sensei wanted!

If Morihei Ueshiba only made another aportation to human violence he did nothing remarkable at all. If he gave us a resource for helping to stop violence on earth, he must be remembered with love. And his Path can be followed with loving heart!

Blessings for all
DudSan

Kevin Leavitt
05-26-2006, 01:16 PM
Douglas,

On a philosophical level I totally agree with you.

On a reality level, There are still some people in the world that want to do harm to us. So there are some practical reasons to study some form of martial arts....maybe not traditional aikido...but martial...yes.

I agree though, martial arts are more about fighthing the enemy within yourself.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

DudSan
05-26-2006, 01:47 PM
No, no, no, thanks to you Kevin, for your polite and respectful posts. ;) They reflect the spirit of a real Aikidoka. :)

Maybe Aikido is a martial art that persons should know after they have already knowledge from other Budo disciplines? I mean: if you know enough from real violence and how to manage it physically (Reality Based Self Defense systems, arts like Muay Thai, etc.), then you can advance a further step and learning how to avoid this same violence peacefully with your very developed martial abilities (Aikido).

I have practiced violent things on the past, and I consider my previous knowledge to be useless and disgusting. What should I use with preference in case of an aggression? Aikido. Less problems. Less harm. To him and to me. I am making here a comparisson, from a practical point of view, between Aikido and very violent combat systems that I have studied on a past. And that I would never use on the street.

But as I practiced other things then this comparisson is possible. Perhaps if I had never practiced anything else, I would feel unsafe now. Maybe other Aikidoists have studied only Aikido, and they consider that they need more than that for the street. I understand them.

Though in the end, after deviating from the Peaceful Way and exploring the ways of destruction, they will always miss the Peace of Aikido and they will come back IF they understood the art. And besides, if they become MASTERS in their art, they will be untouchable, IMHO, without the need of cross training. But it is always easier to train many things that to master perfectly only one.

Hey, this is only my opinion! :D I am no one after all. :)

I bow respectfully in front of you all,
may the Peace of God rest with you
and the Blessing of Budo guide you everyday
on His Path of Confort and Restauration.
DudSan

Roy Dean
05-26-2006, 02:07 PM
"My smaller guys have never asked to see a film of themselves to believe what they are doing. I don't think the Gracies needed to see one of themselves either. Training tends to answer questions."

The point of filming is not to convince yourself of what you're doing, it's to convince OTHERS of the validity of your methods. That's why the Gracies started the UFC and sold GIA tapes. And it does it in a far more direct and concise method than lengthy posts on various MA discussion forums.

Best,

Roy

Kevin Leavitt
05-26-2006, 02:28 PM
Yes it does Roy!

Patrick Crane
05-26-2006, 05:59 PM
Wow, or rather, Yikes!!
Is this argument still going?

What if I told you I know a guy who is a 6th degree black belt in KenPo and a Black Sash in Wing Chun who has never studied aikido but thinks it "works" enough to let our small group have practice space in his dojo twice a week?

A fight......?
Meaning what?
Last time I was in what I consider to be a "fight" was the fifth grade, and it was as stupid of me then to be in a "fight" as it would be today.

If attacked by a criminal, your lawyer can tell you your first LEGAL obligation is to try to get away....escape....run!
If I couldn't escape, in the heat of the moment, I would honestly just do whatever felt natural.
I take aikido lessons, among other reasons, to try, ever so slowly, to change what might feel natural, to increase my chances of opening up an opportunity to get away....escape....run!

Crack-heads don't tap out.

Aristeia
05-26-2006, 06:53 PM
Crack-heads don't tap out.
no, they go to sleep or lose the ability to use the limb you've just destroyed.

Man of Aiki
05-26-2006, 07:05 PM
So the 'If a guy shoots in on an Aikidoka, the Aikidoka is pretty much helpless" meme still alive and well.

What else is new?

Aristeia
05-26-2006, 07:15 PM
not helpless - so long as they've learned to sprawl or whizzer or the shot is bad.

Kevin Leavitt
05-27-2006, 06:43 AM
Brian, you still hung up on the whole shoot thing? Go out and work with some guys that are good at it and try somethings out....it will make more sense then. If you don't have time or the ability to do that...get some pride or UFC tapes and study them closely.

Patrick:

Yea this is STILL going on! We are all having a good time here discussing Aikido, MMA, and reality. Not really about if aikido works in a real fight or not too much any more! Really more about how to us aikido skills practically...or how aikido is not geared necessarily for the fight as we traditionally practice it.

Good discussion...at least I am enjoying it.

Also...shhhh don't tell Jun...we are trying to get to 1000 post! only 105 to go!

Most of us here agree that fighting is not a good thing and that it should be avoided if possible.

The thing is though, that sometimes you don't have any options, and then what do you have? Sometimes you run, sometimes you can't!

So join in the discussion!

Talon
05-27-2006, 11:14 AM
I find that although Aikido was not designed for competition and it may not be the most efficient system to use in the OCTAGON unlike RexCuanDo ... :) , most real fights I saw and experienced all started with some kind of a grab or push. I think aikido techniques are very applicable in these real situations. Look at hockey fights. One arm grabs and the other punches. Most times they will grab first and the thing escalates. I find this practice mirrors quite well what happens in real life situations. Another thing is in most situations the attacker, agressor expects you to do the natural thing and grab him back and eventually strike. He does not expect you to go after his arm and joints. I think if trained properly Aikido techniques are quite usable and applicable in real life situations. Just my 2 cents.

Kevin Leavitt
05-27-2006, 11:48 AM
Thanks for the insights Paul.

That is one way of looking at fights.

My concerns are not the so-called street rumbles or hockey sport type fights...but the ones where someone really wants to kill you.

Ambushes are my real fear.

You don't see the lead pipe coming for you until he is dominating and on top of you. Or the knife, or what not.

Not really sure what you can do to prepare for that. If you are lucky enough to survive the intial onslaught...you need to keep your wits about you....hold on to something, recover, and go from there.

This is another way of looking at fighting as well.

Aikido as traditiionally practiced, does not focus on this either. Nor really should it, as it would then become about the situation and not the way or DO of aikido.

Talon
05-27-2006, 11:59 AM
Yeah Kevin. Ambush type situations where you don't see the pipe until he is dominating and on top of you are in my mind impossibilities to train. You have to develop a 6th sense where you can anticipate that attack before it happens. They say Ueshiba possessed such a sense. In the case that you describe I really don't see any Martial art preparing you. In these cases we should all practice and learn fortune telling or crystal ball readings.... :) I know where youre coming from though Kevin.

Kevin Leavitt
05-27-2006, 01:06 PM
These situations are one of the reasons I train in ground fighting. in case your point of failure goes this far, AND you survive!

But, as you say Paul...you cannot really prepare for this to thwart it. Luck can play a big part in the situation.

Patrick Crane
05-27-2006, 07:50 PM
only 105 to go!


Only 100 now, you're on your way.

Since you're talking about how aikido applies in the real world and real situations, like an ambush or whatever, one of my biggest problems trying to practice aikido movements (tenkan/tentai) on real-world surfaces and wearing real-world footwear is that it absolutely KILLS my knees.
Barefoot on the mat.......no problem.
On the loading dock, in work boots............OUCH!!

Man of Aiki
05-27-2006, 09:45 PM
Kevin:

Not hung up on it at all, just wondering what kind of Aikido you have seen or practiced when those such as yourself have this confidence that an Aikido is 'mostly' helpless against a shoot.

I've seen every UFC since #5, Royce vs. Ken the ReMatch.

Most of the Pride's too.

I study Aikido as a self-defense art. I've also seen many of the 'real life fight' tapes out there and very rarely do you find some attacker on the street going in low, hard and fast like one of you expertly trained BJJ guys.

For self-defense it works fine.

Trust me, there aren't hordes of ex-BJJ students out there on crack now looking to mug people.

Kevin Leavitt
05-28-2006, 12:49 AM
Patrick wrote:

Since you're talking about how aikido applies in the real world and real situations, like an ambush or whatever, one of my biggest problems trying to practice aikido movements (tenkan/tentai) on real-world surfaces and wearing real-world footwear is that it absolutely KILLS my knees.

You know, I am currently teaching a class of Nat Guard soldiers for the next week that have not ever done combatives training, several of them were complaining about knees hurting from going up and down and rotating on the mat.

Not sure if it is related to what you are talking about...maybe you are talking about the torsional movement/pressure while standing in footwear??

I don't seem to have this issue at all....I will have to watch what they are doing.

I know in my dojo back in the states my former instructor spent a great deal of time teaching us to move and transfer weight correctly. Same on the Mat....my knees don't really "rub" or rotate on the mat.

Again, I may not understand it correctly what you are saying, but slow down things and look carefully at what you are doing. If you are used to "gliding" your barefeet across tatami...you may need to re-evaluate and adjust what you are doing.

same with ground fighting...knees and elbows are not transfer or weight distribution points for me a whole lot. I had to learn and develop strength and coordination to avoid this. Play with it and see!

Kevin Leavitt
05-28-2006, 01:16 AM
Brian wrote:

Not hung up on it at all, just wondering what kind of Aikido you have seen or practiced when those such as yourself have this confidence that an Aikido is 'mostly' helpless against a shoot.

Your aikido may be helpless against a shoot...mine is not! :)

Seriously though, be careful when generalizing and summing up what has been said here. Most of what has been said is that most people in aikido don't practice much against shoots. In principle, done correctly with alignment, timing, and technique...aikido is and can be successful. IF, you practice it, and IF you develop those particular skill sets.

What you have to be careful of is taking a principle driven methodology and applying it LITERALLY, to a fighting situation. In one example you seem to talk about "going to your knees" as if in swariwaza. Our point is that there are alot of things that go into a shoot, from closing the distance, to counters along the way. Someone that practices this stuff as their main thing has developed a "tool box" of things that work and appropriate responses.

Most aikidoka don't spend time doing these things, and practice very isolated techniques to develop a deep understanding of correct posture, movement, alignment, and principle. Just be careful when trying to transfer that knowledge to a real situtation! That is all that is really being said.

It is not that it doesn't "work". Just maybe not like it is done in the dojo.

I agree about your assessment concerning "street fights". Again, those are not the ones that worry me...it is the ones you don't see coming until it is too late!

One thing I will tell you about self defense and aikido is that "the best laid plans go out the window once contact starts!". We all have a vision in our head of what a fight is and will be. In reality depending on the circumstances, it may or may not go our way.

If you are really concerned about self defense, then you need to do "other things" other than aikido and empty hand.

Something most of us don't spend time on in our so-called "self defense" training is dealing with the overwhelming assault of emotion, adrenaline, shock, and oxygen debt. Randori can approximate some of this...but I think aikido in general is not geared toward training this process.

One reason is that training like this alot can develop bad habits. It should not be the focus of your training.

Another reason is liability. It is difficult to approximate a real life situatoin safely and control it so no-one really gets hurt.

Another resaon is experience of qualified instructors. To keep things safe, you have to have people that are trained properly to control the environment.

Also qualified students. to keep it safe...students need to be trained in some basics to keep themselves from getting hurt. BJJ offers a good base model for developing these close in skills. (BJJ ain't all about ground fighting BTW). Most aikidoka do not have a proper base to begin training this way. There are somethings missing that need to be trained up first prior to going there. Not hard to do...takes about 40 hours of training to develop. AIkidoka generally have a good base to work with though!

Expense. In order to keep it safe, you need to have some pretty sophisticated gear like Blauer suits. Redman is okay...but they are too restrictive I have been told to allow freedom of the wearer to respond in a appropriate way. (you must feel some pain in order to respond correctly).


The Dog Brothers do a decent job in a low tech way...but man, those guys are crazy! It takes a special individual willing to train that way!

Brian, again, it is not that in principle that aikido cannot defend against a shoot...it is just that once you go down that road into "reality", "self defense" etc...you open up into a huge field of "what ifs" and "70%" solutions...and it is a challenge to cross over from a principle/theory driven system into one based on "reality".

"Lessons Learned" from those that have a background in aikido and have tried or are in the processing of assimilating our backgrounds is what we are talking about here. It is not about bashing aikido or saying that it does not work.

Good discussion!

Kevin Leavitt
05-28-2006, 01:26 AM
I just remembered something about aikido in a real life situation that I did that I kinda didn't even think about.....

I was in Maputo Mozambique a few months ago. Great place, but still a little rough around the edges. The intel from the State Dept told us to never go out after dark, and avoid certain places, and always travel in pairs.

Anyway, after several days of being coop'd up in my hotel, I really wanted to get out and see a few things. So my boss and I went out on the town for a walk. It is hard to blend in there if you are a middle age white guy :) So, we were prime targets for a mugging.

Not being from that culture, it is hard to read why people are watching you. It may be simple curiosity or it may be they are sizing you up. Anyway....several times we were walking side by side and I'd come up on a "danger zone". I'd tell my boss to walk ahead with confidence I'd drop back to where if we were "cornered" it would be hard for them to control both of us. I'd cross the street and walk on the opposite of the road from my boss...and things like that.

My boss thought I was a little crazy at first, but several times I saw guys approaching us, then back off as if to say.."nah, it is not worth it!".

Couple of other buddies went out and were "softly rolled" for a few amercian bucks! They wrote it off as the price of doing business....My boss and I never had to pay out on dime for our walk!

So, ma'ai, timing, distancing...all that good stuff works! and never did have to deal with the "shoot" :) couldn't resist that one!

wendyrowe
05-28-2006, 02:30 PM
Your aikido may be helpless against a shoot...mine is not! :)
I was watching UFC 60 last night and saw something very interesting in one of the fights. No spoilers here, I'm being careful; don't give anything away in your reply.

One guy went in for a shoot on more than one occassion but the other guy did a great job of keeping his balance and moving out of the way even when it meant getting his foot out of the shooter's grasp. It was a clear demonstration of shoot defense that could be used just fine in Aikido. It was purely defensive and what it meant was that he was disengaging completely, not committing to an attack -- so using that technique alone might not be the best way to go if you want to show aggression and win in competition.

However, defending against a shoot, staying upright, disengaging, regaining proper mai ai and maybe even running away might be considered perfectly aiki. I'll certainly be studying, trying to copy his movements to learn to do the same.

Kevin Leavitt
05-28-2006, 02:38 PM
good points Wendy.

The shoot is usually a part of a series of attacks or an "attack chain", not done in isolation. Some times you can get away as you say...other times you can't! That is why it is good to have a decent sprawl and recover strategy!

I think in real life, i'd do as you say though!

xuzen
05-28-2006, 09:45 PM
I think shooting is quite difficult if the shooter is facing an aikidoka armed with a jo... :D :D :D

94 more post to go to hit the 1,000 mark.

Kevin Leavitt
05-28-2006, 11:57 PM
What if the shooter shoots with a gun?

wendyrowe
05-29-2006, 04:30 AM
My tai chi teacher is teaching T. T. Liang's Cane Form, and it's pretty interestingly aiki jo-like. I can imagine some of the moves working pretty well against an attacker, particularly one trying to shoot in.

I'm sitting the cane form out and just watching, because at the moment I feel like if I have to memorize one more form my head will explode. That's another reason I love Aikido: everything's short mix-and-match units, unlike my 150 move tai chi and my karate and the karate I have to learn to teach the kids because they've got some forms that are different than the adults. Kata are great, but if I really want to be able to apply something I'd much rather know it in many small pieces that I've recombined in many different ways as well as practicing them in short rock-paper-scissor style combinations.

Kevin Leavitt
05-29-2006, 04:34 AM
That is what I like about aikido is that the method in which we train also us to be somewhat spontaneous with an appropriate response. Now add fully resistive training to the mix and you have something!

George S. Ledyard
05-29-2006, 10:58 AM
That is what I like about aikido is that the method in which we train also us to be somewhat spontaneous with an appropriate response. Now add fully resistive training to the mix and you have something!

Kevin,
As a test once in a while, I think the fully resistive training is a fine idea. I actually get my dosage of reality tests in the non-Aikido classes I do. My college Defensive Tactics Class had a mixed martial arts instructor in there this quarter. It was fun to see how my stuff worked against him. However, he was more interested in what he could show me he knew than in what I had to show him so he didn't take advantage of what I had to offer him.

Anyway, the problem with having your ukes resisting all the time in conventional Aikido training is that since 50% of your time is spent as the Uke, then half of the time you are training you are giving your body precisely the wrong instruction from what you need to be doing when you are Nage.

There is a very good reason that we train the way we do in Aikido. It's the same in Systema. I read someone complaining about over reactive partners in their art as well. But these are systems which are trying to teach the body to react to stress and conflict in a way that is opposite to what it naturally tends to do.

This is heard enough when training is done conventionally. It becomes even harder when half of the time one is doing the opposite. There are so few people who get to the level of someone like Saotome Sensei or Ikeda Sensei. The subtleties involved are easy to "drown out" if one does too much resistance type training too early. Any tension at all and you simply don't have it. So both Systema and Aikido are similar in their training methodology in that they focus on re-educating the body first and foremost. So, both roles in the training interaction focus on non-resistance.

Once one is grounded in the principles and has an understanding in ones body of what is what, then sure, try it out with some folks who don't operate on the same paradigm. I did a seminar in Colorado with Vladimir in the Systema in which he did a class on dealing with a fully resistant partner. It was great to see that ones stuff would work but in other ways it wasn't as interesting because ultimately the non-resistant partner is the more dangerous. Anyway, I do think it is an issue in our training that those of us who were taught to train in Aikido as a martial art were allowed to train with too much tension for far too long. It retards the process of figuring out what is really going on.

statisticool
05-29-2006, 11:45 AM
Aikido doesn't work in a fight; it is so efficient, it gets the job done without having to put in work. :)

Kevin Leavitt
05-29-2006, 12:16 PM
and Justin...you are speaking from experience I assume?

Kevin Leavitt
05-29-2006, 12:23 PM
Oh I agree George. I did not mean to apply that you need to add this training to aikido. Frankly I think it does not belong!

I was merely implying it more on a personal level. Sorry for that!

I made a conscious decision to defer my own growth in aikido for the time being to practice a more resistive practice through MMA and BJJ right now. It was something I needed to do for work reasons and for personal reasons!

However after watching the video of my last fight in a competition, I am going back and slowing things way down in my submission fighting training and incorporating my aikido methods as I my posture is terrible! It literaly got me beat!

It's a tough call when talking about being grounded in principles! I am not sure what is a good balance! I can see the guys I am training not understand the principles in BJJ that the upper guys are trying to convey. Frankly looking at a BJJ dojo They seem to take a few years longer to understand the subtleness of movement than aikido guys do....but aikido guys don't assimilate the practical side of things until later.

Sort of approaching the same equation from opposite ends maybe??

statisticool
05-29-2006, 12:35 PM
and Justin...you are speaking from experience I assume?

If I make that claim, you'll be the very first person I notify. :)

Aikido books, experiences of others, whether past masters, friends who have studied aikido, or news articles of successful uses of aikido and talking about its efficiency, exist.

Kevin Leavitt
05-29-2006, 01:47 PM
I can offer you first hand knowledge and my own experiences after studying for 10 years that it is not as you say in post #912.

You shouldn't trivialize fighting, conflict, and violence. It is serious, dangerous, and something to not be taken lightly or flippantly.

George S. Ledyard
05-29-2006, 02:08 PM
Sort of approaching the same equation from opposite ends maybe??

Certainly. It is my belief that the Founder structured things the way he did because applied fighting technique was simply not what he was worried about nor did he feel the need to create Aikido in order to have an undefeatable martial art.

Aikido is structured the way it is beacuse he was far more worried about communicating a set of spiritual principles. The practice is designed to be a sort of laboratory where an individual can work out the physical and psychic principles in a controlled environment. Much of this stuff is such low intensity in its subtlety that too much physicality at the beginning drowns everything else out.

I am not saying that your approach isn't excellent. If you look at how O-sensei did things it was very much the same. He simply didn't teach beginners. He took folks who were already at a very experinced level in one or mnore arts and then taught them Aikido. So actually, the majority of the Aikido greats trained the same way you are, focusing on developing the strength of intention required to be in a martial interaction, imprinting solid body mechanics etc.

Frankly, if I won the lottery today and simply didn't have to worry about the number of students I had at all, I would probably do the same thing... You want to train? Go get a black belt in judo or BJJ, go take boxing for a while, do jeet kun do or pencak silat,,, something else. Then we would talk about Aikido. If we did that there would be no endless thread about whether Aikido worked or not.

But Aikido has spread far beyond that and many people wish to do Aikido who probably wouldn't have done any other martial training if they hadn't been able to do Aikido. I train them because a) they support the dojo for the more serious folks and b) they do derive an amazing amount of personal benefit from practice even if they never take it to a very high level.

But if you are actually looking to go the distance and take your Aikido out to the limit (whatver that might be for you), the path you are on is the one most likely to get you there. Mastery of the solid foundational skills is really a requirement to get to the more energetic aspects of the art. I'm not saying that one can't do that just within Aikido training itself, but it's harder to do so. The folks I know who have donme it trained like maniacs, very intensely for years with a top teacher, mostly in Japan.

statisticool
05-29-2006, 02:33 PM
You shouldn't trivialize fighting, conflict, and violence. It is serious, dangerous, and something to not be taken lightly or flippantly.

I agree, one shouldn't. Glad no one did here.
(btw, saying something is "efficient" is not in insult)

You've had your experiences, but so have Ueshiba and other effective martial artists, many which had/have military backgrounds, and were non-violent and non-aggressive and still effective.

Kevin Leavitt
05-29-2006, 03:24 PM
Thanks for the advice and inspiration George! Maybe one day!

wendyrowe
05-29-2006, 08:50 PM
You've had your experiences, but so have Ueshiba and other effective martial artists, many which had/have military backgrounds, and were non-violent and non-aggressive and still effective.
I can't put my finger on them right now, but I think I've read bios of O'Sensei that talk about his taking on all challengers. What's your definition of "non-violent" if it allows for participation in dojo challenge fights? I always thought a non-violent person would have to refuse to take part in a fight.

Kevin Leavitt
05-30-2006, 12:26 PM
I don't know enough about O'sensei really to comment on his actions concerning violence. I believe he probably experienced it enough early in his life and had many years to reflect on it and came to a certain understanding of violence. I think he understood the dynamics and etiology of violence and offered aikido as a tool to help others understand it.

Was he non-violent? I suppose that depends on your definition of what encompasses non-violence.

I don't know too many people that I am around that actively seek violence out, but those same people have the courage and some skills to face violence and confront it. I don't think it is so much about avoidance, but "right action" and "right mind".

choosing to avoid violence does not necessarily resolve it. What we really should accomplish is seeking to improve our ability to deal with it skillfully.

I don't think it is so much about non-violence or non-agressvieness....but appropriateness.

DudSan
05-30-2006, 01:09 PM
Friends, what about changing the title of this thread: Martial Arts versus Real Life Violence?
Aikido is so useless against a shoot Karate, Ninjitsu, or any other martial art. And in fact, Martial Arts are more useful Today for Self Improvement than for facing real life violence. The best way to handle physically a fight on the street is using advantage: he comes with a bottle and I pick up an iron pipe. He comes with a knife and I get a gun. He comes with a gun and I throw him a hand grenade... Like that.
Of course, after that you go to jail for a loooooong time! So, if Aikido teaches you NOT to fight, then it is more useful than if it teaches how to fight. NOBODY wins on a real fight.
Listen this story:
I know some guy who has been practicing for MANY years MANY martial arts and he is a LOT skilled!
He is Black Belt in several arts (Aikido included), he is instructor of LEO and a leader inside of Ninjitsu. Well he was going home and a thug threw a stone at his eye. From afar. End of the matter.
And if someone study HOW CRIMINALS really ATTACK he will notice that they donīt like to fight. Mostly fights are against assholes and big mouths, not against serial criminals or real terrorists or professional killers. They wonīt lose their time fighting! They will shoot you from far away or in other case they will try to cheat you, betray you, get you by surprise, and with advantage. If someone shoots a gunshot in your head from behind, rest well in Heaven. No martial art will save you on the street.
So for me, Martial Arts are not the medicine of street violence (though they have many virtues for every1 who practice them). Only awareness can save you and a lot of good criminal psychology. If things go physical, I would rely on weapons more than on H2H techniques.
This is street reality.
Aikido will have the same effectiveness than any other martial art FOR things that Martial Arts can handle on the street (a frontal fight). And usually the kind of persons who show off on the street are not well trained (I said usually, not always). What makes criminals so dangerous is the surprise, the selection of the scenario, the use of advantage, in a word: the tactics, more than a training in fighting. So Aikido will technically work WHEN it can work, I mean in a frontal fight.
But this is not the professional criminalīs modus operandi, so you better be aware, because this is the best way to avoid violence, preconflict stage.
By the way, with Ki Awase you can develop a good sixth sense, isnīt it? Aikido is good for awareness.
Ergo, good for the street.
Respectfully I salute you all and I apologize if I have offended someone
DudSan

Man of Aiki
05-30-2006, 05:38 PM
O-Sensei devoted the last part of his life to creating what he called 'Warriors for Peace'.

He lost many of his pre-WWII students to violent deaths in that conflict. I think he came to the conclusion that having a martial art that just trains somebody to fight and best someone else as physical combat was pointless.

Wouldn't it be better to develop martial arts into something that would defend and protect life instead of harming life and taking it?

During the War he moved to Iwama and I think he was already thinking along these lines.

He could envision a martial art where through skilled training a person could face a violent event and resolve it peacefully without any harm coming to himself or the other person/s.

Having watched his country start a war to 'prove' it's great destiny and then suffer horribly from consequences, I think O-Sensei knew well how precious life is because he saw alot of it destroyed for pointless reasons.

George is absolutely correct that someone who looks at Aikido soley as a 'fighting style' and gauges it's effectiveness in a street hand to hand combat situation is only seeing the tip of an iceberg. There is so much more to Aikido than 'can I win a fight with it?'.

Study Aikido diligently for many years, and the question becomes: "How would I ever get into a fight in the first place?"

Ever notice how some people just seem to always be drawn into conflicts with others, whether verbal or physical? Every time you turn around they've got a new feud going with somebody.

Ever notice how some people never seem to get into any sort of conflict at all, no matter how long you've known them, even though they've often been in the same type of situations as the first person described above?

Some people are always 'out of harmony' with others, while some people, no matter who they are with or what is going on, seem to be 'on the same wavelength' with everyone no matter how different they are.

Beyond the physical throwing and locking, Aikido does have something to teach people in this regard; I know because I've experienced it. It is far more than just a 'fighting system'. It's an art that can teach you to seek harmony with even the most unharmonious of people.

Guilty Spark
05-30-2006, 07:45 PM
My biggest disappointment with (almost) all martial arts schools and instructors I've spoke with is that almost immediately upon speaking with them they not only point our how their martial art is good but how other martial arts suck. While attending a kung fu class with a friend who dragged me there the school owner launched into a tirade about taekwondo and how horrible it is when he found out I was a green belt.

People involved in martial arts today seem stuck on how other martial arts stacks against their own and not simply how fun interesting or effective their own martial arts is.

I find 'what would work in real life' arguments a little misleading. In "real life" a BIG part of th equation is going to depend on the person. There are black belts out there who will lock up or panic in a real situation the same way there are white belts or people with no formal training who might clean house with someone of any martial art.
Aikido works for some people in real life situations, others it doesn't.

mathewjgano
05-30-2006, 08:22 PM
My biggest disappointment with (almost) all martial arts schools and instructors I've spoke with is that almost immediately upon speaking with them they not only point our how their martial art is good but how other martial arts suck.
...There are black belts out there who will lock up or panic in a real situation the same way there are white belts or people with no formal training who might clean house with someone of any martial art.
Aikido works for some people in real life situations, others it doesn't.

I've always thought (and so it MUST be true, I know :D ) the greatest weapon a person, let alone a martial artist, can have is the mind. The ability to calmly focus in a chaotic situation is THE most important ability one can learn and you can learn that on your own, with diligence. Other than that it seems to me different arts are just different approaches to the same thing: mastery of the human form. It seems that at their highest levels, every art tends to look very similar. What I take from that is that the real question isn't a matter of style, but of dedication and focus, both of one's teacher(s), and of oneself.
Trash-talking is usually ego-filled tripe.
...but I digress :straightf :D

Kevin Leavitt
05-30-2006, 11:48 PM
Brian, Matt, Grant, and Douglas,

All very good post! I could not agree with you guys more!

Conflict and martial arts are very complicated, multi-faceted, and not a "black or white" issue.

Reducing it to "techniques" or "effectiveness" is hard to do. Sure there are ways to exploit developing skills in one area or another for a particular focus such as police work, sport, or self defense...it is necessary sometimes to do this to grow, learn, or leverage an advantage.

However, in the big picture, we must understand the things you guys are talking about if we ever hope to evolve and grow as individuals and as a society!

Michael Douglas
05-31-2006, 12:39 AM
Justin Smith wrote ; "You've had your experiences, but so have Ueshiba and other effective martial artists, many which had/have military backgrounds, and were non-violent and non-aggressive and still effective."
I have to disagree completely here Justin. As far as I can see, Ueshiba was a violent man who trained most of his life in violence, gladly sought and accepted violent challenges, injured people and was a highly skilled and natural thug.
As he got older and became involved in a popular Japanese cult he began to promote the possibly non-violent aspect of martial arts and distilled his Aikido.
I think your views must be based on a different percieved history to mine, therefore you must have read a different selection of sources. That's OK, but to perpetuate the myth of non-violent and non-aggressive Aikido being not only effective defence but actually so efficient it takes no effort to defeat the assailant ... that's dangerous twaddle and likely to get someone killed or injured.

statisticool
05-31-2006, 04:02 AM
That's OK, but to perpetuate the myth of non-violent and non-aggressive Aikido being not only effective defence but actually so efficient it takes no effort to defeat the assailant ... that's dangerous twaddle and likely to get someone killed or injured.

I already addressed this when Kevin tried it.


As he got older and became involved in a popular Japanese cult he began to promote the possibly non-violent aspect of martial arts and distilled his Aikido.
I think your views must be based on a different percieved history to mine, therefore you must have read a different selection of sources.


No "possible", "different", or "perceived" about it. :)


"Aikido is nonviolence. Every human being has been entrusted with a mandate from heaven, and the victory we seek is to overcome all challenges and fight to the finish, accomplishing our goals. In Aikido we never attack. If you want to strike first, to gain advantage over someone, that is proof your training is insufficient, and it is really you yourself who has been defeated. Let your partner attack, and use his aggression against him. Do not cower from an attack; control it before it begins. Nonviolence is the true practice of Aikido."
- Morihei Ueshiba, founder of Aikido

wendyrowe
05-31-2006, 04:47 AM
... Here's a source for you to read...
"Aikido is nonviolence. Every human being has been entrusted with a mandate from heaven, and the victory we seek is to overcome all challenges and fight to the finish, accomplishing our goals. In Aikido we never attack. If you want to strike first, to gain advantage over someone, that is proof your training is insufficient, and it is really you yourself who has been defeated. Let your partner attack, and use his aggression against him. Do not cower from an attack; control it before it begins. Nonviolence is the true practice of Aikido."
- Morihei Ueshiba, founder of Aikido

First of all, saying that you shouldn't start a fight isn't saying you're non-violent. It's just saying that you shouldn't be the one to start it.

I suspect that if we knew Japanese we might not come away with precisely the same shade of meaning we glean from the translated soundbite "Nonviolence is the true practice of Aikido." Historically, a truly non-violent person would take the beating rather than fight back. Controlling the fight may be very efficiently done, but I would still say there's violence involved. It might just be a matter of definition, as we said earlier -- if by "violence" you mean "agression with bad intent" or "a hostile offensive action" then you're probably right in saying that O'Sensei wasn't violent. I don't agree with that definition, though.

Although Webster's Unabridged Dictionary's first definition is "acting with or characterized by great physical force, so as to injure or damage; rough"; so if you're using the first clause in that definition, I can see why you wouldn't characterize Aikido as "acting with or characterized by great physical force, so as to injure or damage."

Second, I think that's a post-war O'Sensei quote, from when he, as Michael Douglas said, got older and became involved in the Omoto religion and "began to promote the possibly non-violent aspect of martial arts and distilled his Aikido."

There's currently a good thread here on Aikiweb where people are discussing whether or not O'Sensei was a pacifist: http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10388&page=1&pp=25

Kevin Leavitt
05-31-2006, 05:35 AM
When you get into the whole violence/non-violence thing...you are starting to talk about ethics, a whole nother subject.

Imagine having the capcity to stop a "greater harm", i.e...watching a old lady getting mugged and having a stance against violence and not interfering based on your principles of "non-violence". Where are you now. It is not that easy!

edited out..cause I wasn't being nice!!! :)

Dirk Hanss
05-31-2006, 06:55 AM
Although Webster's Unabridged Dictionary's first definition is "acting with or characterized by great physical force, so as to injure or damage; rough"; so if you're using the first clause in that definition, I can see why you wouldn't characterize Aikido as "acting with or characterized by great physical force, so as to injure or damage."

Just the silly association of my weird synapses:
Does that mean that aikidoka are not violent, because they (we) use only very little physical force to injure or damage?

Just a joke, but you might have to think about it.

Dirk

wendyrowe
05-31-2006, 07:15 AM
Just the silly association of my weird synapses:
Does that mean that aikidoka are not violent, because they (we) use only very little physical force to injure or damage?

Just a joke, but you might have to think about it.

Dirk
It's that whole perspective thing: an aikidoka, I hope, would not cause more damage than the situation calls for. If you're rushed by a drunk, you control him with nikkyo -- you don't punch him in the face and stomp on his head once he's down. The first doesn't seem violent, the second does. But the aikidoka might have intercepted the drunk before observers realized the drunk was on his way to attack; in that case, it would look like the aikidoka was the aggressor, but as long as he didn't do anything really nasty to the guy people wouldn't get too upset about it.

It's like the "appropriate force continuum" used by police: you use the least force you can to control the situation, and you get in trouble (e.g. are pegged as the aggressor) if you use more than you need to.

DonMagee
05-31-2006, 11:13 AM
It's that whole perspective thing: an aikidoka, I hope, would not cause more damage than the situation calls for. If you're rushed by a drunk, you control him with nikkyo -- you don't punch him in the face and stomp on his head once he's down. The first doesn't seem violent, the second does. But the aikidoka might have intercepted the drunk before observers realized the drunk was on his way to attack; in that case, it would look like the aikidoka was the aggressor, but as long as he didn't do anything really nasty to the guy people wouldn't get too upset about it.

It's like the "appropriate force continuum" used by police: you use the least force you can to control the situation, and you get in trouble (e.g. are pegged as the aggressor) if you use more than you need to.

And by that BJJ is also extreamly non-violent. Just watch the first few UFC's. See how bloody the fights are, then watch Hoyce's fights. He takes the guys down and gets them to submit with little or no injury to them. The difference being you dont have someone telling you when you train bjj that you are non-violent, or that you should strive to be non-violent. You just train. Of course I expect that to change as more and more americans practice bjj. Because I really belive it is the nature of people in this country to take a good idea, then bastardize it and make it into something we think is deep and intellectual and eventually water down and make the whole thing nothing like what it was supose to be. Look at the state of most martial arts in this country. We will pick and choose teachings to fit our agenda.

Kevin Leavitt
05-31-2006, 11:58 AM
Nah I don't see that happening with BJJ Don. Aikido is that way because the founder had a mission...however, because of the nature of our country, our point in society, history etc...aikido is probably interpreted slightly different than the way it was in Japan 30 or 40 years ago.

DonMagee
05-31-2006, 12:00 PM
I hope they dont, but I get worried everytime I read Helio say "Jiujitsu is a self defense art"

I'm waiting for the bjj guys who dont spar or compete because Helio was against it LOL. Of course that will be sometime after the vampire of an old man dies.

Kevin Leavitt
05-31-2006, 12:08 PM
Yea Good point...I have Helio's expensive book, frankly I have some issues with some of the things in his book, which is suprising as I have found BJJ to be very efficient and pretty much dead on in grappling and ground fighting. What he has in that book is very little of what I have done in BJJ.

You are probably right as Rorion, Rickson, Carlos and the rest get older....they may get more esoteric and philosophical...I see nothing wrong with it as long as they can keep there focus and not lose sight of what they have going that is really good.

I think the popularity of BJJ has probably only showed us the basics in the U.S. There probably is quite a bit more to it than most typical BJJ students see. As it matures, and students age...it might get a little more "internal". (I hate to use that word!)

Anyway, Helio illudes to it in his book. I have not seen it in the dojo.

That said, I don't think it will be like aikido as it comes from a different culture and a different time! The current poliferation also does not support the same objectives as aikido.

Dirk Hanss
05-31-2006, 04:52 PM
It's that whole perspective thing: an aikidoka, I hope, would not cause more damage than the situation calls for. If you're rushed by a drunk, you control him with nikkyo -- you don't punch him in the face and stomp on his head once he's down. The first doesn't seem violent, the second does. But the aikidoka might have intercepted the drunk before observers realized the drunk was on his way to attack; in that case, it would look like the aikidoka was the aggressor, but as long as he didn't do anything really nasty to the guy people wouldn't get too upset about it.

It's like the "appropriate force continuum" used by police: you use the least force you can to control the situation, and you get in trouble (e.g. are pegged as the aggressor) if you use more than you need to.

I was just kiing about the wording, but yes some aikidoka might do exactly what you propose, does the standing part of nikyo - and holds - as the drunk tries to get out of that pain, he holds faster, probably just because he is frightened. It does not need much phsical power to damage the wrist for a long time.

Well that is then not aikido any longer and we know it is violent, but Webster's definition said, it is not as he did not use great physical force. One could also argue, usin a sharp knife is not violent, because you do not need great physical force to injure or kill someone. And then we can find 100s of examples to show that Webster's definition is just not adequate.

Don't chew on this post. Turn back to (Non-)Working Aikido again.

Cheers Dirk

Man of Aiki
05-31-2006, 06:27 PM
In this first video, you will see O-Sensei practicing Aikido as he was forming it before the Second World War:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEdsT-R9Pys

In the second video, you will see how he was practicing it just 12-15 years later in Iwama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwQ3HZgz32Q

Which one is the 'violent' Aikido and which one is the 'peaceful' Aikido?

Which one is the 'new' Aikido, and which one is the 'old' Aikido?

Which one is the 'simple' Aikido, and which one is the 'advanced' Aikido?

The answer of course, is that neither is.

There is no 'old' or 'new' Aikido, no 'peaceful' or 'violent' Aikido. It's all Aikido.

To say you are watching a 'violent' man teaching Aikido in 1938 and then watching a 'peaceful' man teaching Aikido in 1952 is a confusion of thought.

It's true the earlier clip shows Aikido as a more practical, hard style and the later clips show it as a more graceful, soft style. But both are Aikido. To say one is 'better' than the other misses the point.

It is true that it would be best to learn both facets of Aikido, hard and soft; O-Sensei certainly did. Even in his later years in films you can see him suddenly revert to a hard technique in the midst of the beautiful, flowing graceful kind of Aikido he had been doing.

The big arguments that sprang up in Aikido after O-Sensei passed on many times had to do with which kind of Aikido was the 'real' kind: the hard kind or the soft kind?

Funny how he never made much of a distinction like that, but it sure came to matter to a lot of the people that wanted to teach it.

Aikido soft or Aikido hard?

Who said this was a either/or question anyway?

Why not Aikido both?

manofaiki

wendyrowe
05-31-2006, 08:34 PM
In this first video, you will see O-Sensei practicing Aikido as he was forming it before the Second World War:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEdsT-R9Pys

In the second video, you will see how he was practicing it just 12-15 years later in Iwama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwQ3HZgz32Q

Thanks for the juxtaposition, Brian. I could have just dug out my videos and watched them, but I wouldn't have gotten around to it.

Kevin Leavitt
06-01-2006, 02:04 PM
aikido is aikido...it is niether violent or non-violent...it is the person behind the actions that determines ultimately what the outcome is. If you act in a compassionate manner it is one thing, if you act out of anger it is another. The same exact movements and techniques, and timing could be used...but it is the intent that makes all the difference.

So, aikido is not special in anyway as a collection of physical movments. Movies do not demonstrate anything in regard to this topic.

Thanks for making us think about this Brian!

statisticool
06-01-2006, 03:16 PM
aikido is aikido...it is niether violent or non-violent...it is the person behind the actions that determines ultimately what the outcome is.

Except we have quotes from Ueshiba saying, verbatim, multiple times, that aikido is non-violent.

wendyrowe
06-01-2006, 03:49 PM
Except we have quotes from Ueshiba saying, verbatim, multiple times, that aikido is non-violent.
He can't have said that verbatim, because it's English and he spoke Japanese. I'll be more convinced that what he actually said in Japanese has the meaning you think it does if our Japanese scholars agree. I'd like to hear from Peter Goldsbury here and from Stan Pranin on Aikido Journal, if someone could entice them to participate. (There are probably others, too, but those are the two who leap to mind.)

Demetrio Cereijo
06-01-2006, 04:09 PM
Except we have quotes from Ueshiba saying, verbatim, multiple times, that aikido is non-violent.

When you transcribe them here, in the originally written Japanese kanji, for the resident Japanese lenguage scholars translation, i'll start to believe you are not trolling this forum.

But until that happens, you're no more than a troll. Please, go trolling other forums (if still are forums where you are tolerated, which i doubt).

Man of Aiki
06-01-2006, 04:31 PM
Justin, what are you trying to say? That the violent founder of the Art of Aikido thought the violent art he was creating was really nonviolent? He deceived himself?

mathewjgano
06-01-2006, 06:38 PM
Except we have quotes from Ueshiba saying, verbatim, multiple times, that aikido is non-violent.

I think he also said budo determines life and death in an instant, and that this is why one ought not compete carelessly. In the same way a warrior can fight for peace, so can a martial art strive toward (and be) non-violent.
When someone attacks me, if I am good enough, I can subdue the attacker without causing harm to either of us. That is non-violent.
If I am less capable, I might protect myself (or others for that matter) but harm my attacker. As far as those I'm protecting, it's a non-violent experience while for the attacker, it's violent to some degree or another. Taken on the whole, there's a degree of violence in the latter scenario which, as an Aikidoka, I'm trying to minimize. Just as our technique gets better over time, so too will our ability to prevent violence, but in my view, the ideal of non-violence must give way to practical reality. I think (though of course do not know for sure) that Osensei would agree...it seems logical to my mind anyway.
Take care,
Matt

Mark Freeman
06-01-2006, 06:56 PM
I think he also said budo determines life and death in an instant, and that this is why one ought not compete carelessly. In the same way a warrior can fight for peace, so can a martial art strive toward (and be) non-violent.
When someone attacks me, if I am good enough, I can subdue the attacker without causing harm to either of us. That is non-violent.
If I am less capable, I might protect myself (or others for that matter) but harm my attacker. As far as those I'm protecting, it's a non-violent experience while for the attacker, it's violent to some degree or another. Taken on the whole, there's a degree of violence in the latter scenario which, as an Aikidoka, I'm trying to minimize. Just as our technique gets better over time, so too will our ability to prevent violence, but in my view, the ideal of non-violence must give way to practical reality. I think (though of course do not know for sure) that Osensei would agree...it seems logical to my mind anyway.
Take care,
Matt

Logical to me too Matt, :)

regards,

Mark

Kevin Leavitt
06-02-2006, 12:36 AM
O'sensei from what I understand, like most philosophers, spoke in terms of allegories and concepts, not literalizations. Eastern culture in general, especially budo, tao, and buddhism tend to be less black and white.

Jason I will give you this to chew on...see what you come up with.

"Stop Harm"

(talk amongst yourselves)!

Also, I would love to see your response directly to this, which I have already posed.

You see an old lady being assaulted. You say aikido is about non-violence. So do you intervene with force or not? A passive, non-violent approach would say it is wrong to cause harm. So what is the more ethical choice?

Again...:stop harm."

mathewjgano
06-02-2006, 12:51 AM
O'sensei from what I understand, like most philosophers, spoke in terms of allegories and concepts, not literalizations. Eastern culture in general, especially budo, tao, and buddhism tend to be less black and white.
Jason I will give you this to chew on...see what you come up with.
"Stop Harm"
(talk amongst yourselves)!
Also, I would love to see your response directly to this, which I have already posed.
You see an old lady being assaulted. You say aikido is about non-violence. So do you intervene with force or not? A passive, non-violent approach would say it is wrong to cause harm. So what is the more ethical choice?
Again...:stop harm."


It depends on what you mean by "force." In its most basic definition, yeah, I'd intervene with force. I have to use force to move my own body, for example. I would try not to harm anyone as much as possible. If the old lady is being assaulted by unarmed 15 year olds, for example, I would likely be able to accomplish that goal simply by making my presence felt...though obviously one can insert any number of variables to the situation. If there were 5, 23 year old men with weapons, i'd have to approach the situation differently, and I'd more likely than not be practicing something more akin to aikijujutsu (assuming I made contact with any of them to begin with). Is it possible to stop 5, 23 year old, weapon-wielding thugs from harming an old lady without harming them? I'd say "yes" it's possible, but would put it in one of those <1% categories. I'd have to be damned good and creative to do such a thing.
To me, the "do" in Aikido speaks toward a constant attempt toward an ideal: non-violence and mutual benificence. It would be great if somehow I was able to apply my creativity and make those 5 thugs into law-abiding citizens who would then be able to take their understanding of what it means to be a thug and teach others to be better people. Am I now capable? In theory, sure; would it happen if I experienced that tomorrow? Probably not. I'd try and distract them from their task without letting them know where I was and call the cops, or some similar approach.

wendyrowe
06-02-2006, 04:28 AM
I love the paradox, Kevin. Good thought point.

Matthew: if you've broken down the example into two extremes and you say that with one attacker you could stop it just by your presence but with 5 you'd probably fight but lose ... what about two? Two would think they could take you, so they wouldn't be intimidated by the mere fact that you were there as a witness/defender. By saying you'd fight 5 armed 23 year olds, you've admitted to one point where you'd be willing to abandon non-violence; I'd just like you (and others) to examine the edges more to consider where your own boundaries really are.

Kevin Leavitt
06-02-2006, 05:36 AM
Absolutely Matthew! I agree with your examples.

The point is, as you point out, that non-violence cannot be summed up in black and white as "this is what it is!"

There is a spectrum of violence and a spectrum of responses that vary based on many factors.

I think our goal of budo is as you speak to follow the way and to attempt to be able to skillfully deal with violence as possible.

mathewjgano
06-02-2006, 08:59 AM
I love the paradox, Kevin. Good thought point.

Matthew: if you've broken down the example into two extremes and you say that with one attacker you could stop it just by your presence but with 5 you'd probably fight but lose ... what about two? Two would think they could take you, so they wouldn't be intimidated by the mere fact that you were there as a witness/defender. By saying you'd fight 5 armed 23 year olds, you've admitted to one point where you'd be willing to abandon non-violence; I'd just like you (and others) to examine the edges more to consider where your own boundaries really are.

Hi Wendy,
It's not so much that I'd choose to behave violently, as much as I'd be less able to protect the attacker. I was trying to describe a gradient of relative ability. After X amount of training, i might only be able to help that proverbial old lady by harming one or all of those armed attackers; maybe after Y amount of time I could do it without harming a soul, even the line of ants at their feet. My intentions are certainly to avoid harming anyone...it makes it easier to change an enemy to a friend if you haven't bruised that person, let alone nearly or totally crippled them, so I'll always opt for peacefull resolutions if I can see a way to that (and I'll try as hard as I know how if I ever find myself in such a situation).
Take care,
Matt

wendyrowe
06-02-2006, 01:37 PM
In this first video, you will see O-Sensei practicing Aikido as he was forming it before the Second World War:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEdsT-R9Pys

In the second video, you will see how he was practicing it just 12-15 years later in Iwama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwQ3HZgz32Q

They've been removed because Aikido Journal hadn't given permission. So this is an excellent time for me to plug Aikido Journal: they have wonderful footage in their "Video Clips," and I don't think you need to subscribe to look at it. (I just logged out and was still able to click randomly on the first one I tried.) www.aikidojournal.com/media.php?media=video

statisticool
06-02-2006, 04:17 PM
I suspect that if we knew Japanese we might not come away with precisely the same shade of meaning we glean from the translated soundbite "Nonviolence is the true practice of Aikido."


There's also quotes by Kisshomaru Ueshiba from The Spirit of Aikido involving non-violence:

"Aikido rejects all forms of violence, justified or unjustified. Otherwise, we would be no different from the forms of martial arts in which fighting and winning are selling points.

At the risk of sounding repetitious, I want to say again that aikido is a spritual path and its ideal is the realization of harmony and love. By disciplining the mind and body, especially mind, it leads to the perfection of personality and humanity. What we teach children is not brute force, not violence, but the cultivation of ki through the mind-body training which will eventually build confidence, self-esteem and a sense of control over their lives."
(p. 54-55)

and

"The tournament system is the root of the problems arising with the internationalization of Japanese martiala rts. While tournaments have played a definite role in spreading the martial arts throughout the world, they also suppress the unique quality of budo (as opposed to bujutsu), whose primary concern is the cultivation of the spirit. When strength determines all, Japanese martial ways lose their true essence, and it is only natural for physical skill to take stage center. When that happens Japan abrogates it claim to having developed a unique martial art concerned not with violence and brutality but with peace and love."
(p. 117)

Demetrio Cereijo
06-02-2006, 04:26 PM
Justin,

Ueshiba Kisshomaru =/= Ueshiba Morihei.

statisticool
06-02-2006, 05:17 PM
That's (trivially) true, of course. :)

I simply quoted two of the most relevant masters who proclaimed aikido to be non-violent.

Kevin Leavitt
06-02-2006, 05:24 PM
I also reject all forms of violence! I do not seek it or revel in it in anyway.

two questions Justin:

1. You have yet to respond to how do you handle a situation when you witness harm and violence being done?

2. Please remind everyone exactly how much aikido experience you actually have, other than quoting sources on the internet and in books.

I believe there is much you don't understand about violence, conflict, and aikido. It is much more complicated than quoting something someone said in a book. Rejecting violence and recognizing that it exist and dealing with it are two different things.

I really wish you would answer a few questions or respond to the counters to your debate rather than offering new material that says the same thing.

Travis Johnson
06-02-2006, 07:13 PM
wow, how wonderful to have all of these post regarding the same issue. isn't it amazing that this thread got started something like 3 months ago, and at that point there was a mere 600 replies. well, i think i'm just gonna keep training and not be concerned with all of this. one foot in front of the other.

best wishes :)
travis

Demetrio Cereijo
06-03-2006, 04:40 AM
That's (trivially) true, of course. :)

I simply quoted two of the most relevant masters who proclaimed aikido to be non-violent.

Not so trivially :)

Btw, i'm still waiting for the founder's original quotes in the original language.

statisticool
06-05-2006, 11:06 AM
This is not quoting things that random people said, but the founder, the founder's son, his son, and students who were direct students of these people, of the martial art under discussion.

I don't think such teachings can be dismissed merely because people have a bad habit of leaning towards the violent end of the spectrum. I think K. Ueshiba also said (don't have exact quote on hand) something like if one dismisses this philosophical base then they are no longer practicing aikido. Again, that's not my opinion.

statisticool
06-05-2006, 11:08 AM
1. You have yet to respond to how do you handle a situation when you witness harm and violence being done?


I'm not interesting in playing hypotheticals.


ase remind everyone exactly how much aikido experience you actually have, other than quoting sources on the internet and in books.


I never made any claims of having any levels of experience. This is well known. Luckily one doesn't need experience to quote those who do have experience.

Please let me know when you believe I am allowed to talk aikido to you. After 1 month? 3 months? 1 year? 5 years experience? I'll save all my posts until then. ;)

Ron Tisdale
06-05-2006, 11:20 AM
I'm not interesting in playing hypotheticals.

Hmm, yes, quite understandable.

But **we** may not be interested in playing dualing quotes, either.

Confusing the founder's name and the name of his son shows a lack of familiarity with the material you are quoting. So any weight it *might* have carried is lessened. It is also often referred to as an "appeal to authority", which is often cited as a weakness in logical debates. While I don't always agree with that perspective...it does provide an interesting context to such debate.

Best,
Ron

Kevin Leavitt
06-05-2006, 02:12 PM
The whole concept of non-violence is both theorectical and hypothetical. So you offer a quote which leans towards a perfect ideal. If you did study aikido with O'sensei's direct students would would also discover that aikido really is about building a bridge between violence and non-violence, and it is not about ignoring violence.

I pose the question that I ask because it forces you to deal with the ideal of non-violence directly. Your refusal to answer the question means one of two things to me. 1. You truly don't know how to answer the question because of lack of knowledge on the subject. 2. You are ignoring it because it does not support your argument and therefore, you are presenting counterpoints or statements simply to argue.

I can present you many examples of how someone could face and deal with violence and still be doing aikido. It happens everyday.

Of course you are free to discuss aikido as you wish. However, don't expect a warm audience from people that have been studying for years if you do not study it at all, and do not seem geniunely interested in understanding, learning, or internalizing the art.

As Ron has stated, your argument appeals to authority. I simply present a counter to your appeal that offers a greater scope or breadth concerning aikido, o'sensei, and conflict/violence.

The Founders and his Doshu sons also recognized that aikido is an evolving art, that must respond appropriately to the changes in society and perspectives. It must constantly be moving forward and adapting in order to stay relevant. If it was based on a black and white ultimatium as your appeal to authority argument presents...it would have become antiquated and died off long ago, because it does not accurately and honestly answers such questions as I posed to you.

That is the reason you should answer the question about ethics and violence that I pose if you are really interested in discussing the issue honestly.

Thanks Ron for the clarification. Once again, you manage to say what I am trying to say more clearly!

Ron Tisdale
06-05-2006, 02:27 PM
Thanks Ron for the clarification.

:cool: Aww, shucks...

Best,
Ron {blushing}

aikigirl10
06-05-2006, 05:36 PM
I'm not interesting in playing hypotheticals.


Personally, i don't think they are asking you to go into detail about what you would do exactly during a situation of violence or if you were to witness violence.

I think what we are all wondering is, would you consider using violence to help someone who was being attacked, or would that be non-aiki? (<<<for lack of a better word) I dont think it's against aikido principles to use violence as a means of putting an end to violence, if that makes any sense. But of course i could be wrong.

*Paige*

mathewjgano
06-05-2006, 05:58 PM
...you say that with one attacker you could stop it just by your presence but with 5 you'd probably fight but lose ... what about two? Two would think they could take you, so they wouldn't be intimidated by the mere fact that you were there as a witness/defender. By saying you'd fight 5 armed 23 year olds, you've admitted to one point where you'd be willing to abandon non-violence; I'd just like you (and others) to examine the edges more to consider where your own boundaries really are.

After reading this again, I feel compelled to think about it some more.
Everything I said about this hypothetical situation carried a big "maybe," because it is true that hypothetical situations are a bit "what if" game. But they do give us a starting point from which to consider things more deeply, if we're carefull about how we proceed.
Wendy, you asked me to consider where my boundaries are, but to be honest, I'm not entirely sure where they are, which is why I tried to describe everything in slightly uncertain terms. I think it's quite possible for me to take on 5 knife wielding fellows and come through it without harming anyone. I'd only consciously try to harm someone if I perceived it would protect either me or that proverbial old lady from lasting damage. I try to act with conscious effort as much as possible, but that is dependant upon physical and mental timing. If I'm quick enough, I can always consciously place people where I want them, but being human like everyone else, we all tend to have the same relative speed, which makes it tougher to get "inside" their timing and take control of them. The smaller that window of opportunity, the more difficult it is to mindfully protect, and it becomes more chaotic. I train to make that window of opportunity wider, and the more I focus on refining my abilities, the more likely i am able to prevent harm to people, attackers included.
Now, there's always that little part in the back of my mind that would sincerely like to hurt 5 guys attacking a little old lady. It would be a perverse sort of gluttony to do so, as I HATE senseless violence with something of a passion. I don't use that word, hate, lightly. But with that recognition, I dislike the violent urge that hate produces in me and I'm quite dedicated to peace. There are many factors we have to over-come to erradicate violence. The more complicated the violence, the more creative we have to be to solve its problem. Against two people, I'd be much more able to not harm them than against 5 people, based on my current ability. I might suprise myself and make 5 friends with the right choice of words and actions, just as I might suprise myself with that one 15 year old and trip and knock him into a speeding bus. In all cases we have to do our very best, and in all moments of our life we ought to our best to make that best get better.
No wasted moments.
Hope I made some sense...i just woke up and am a bit foggy-headed.
Take care!
Matt

mathewjgano
06-05-2006, 06:15 PM
I dont think it's against aikido principles to use violence as a means of putting an end to violence, if that makes any sense. But of course i could be wrong.

*Paige*

The way I think about it now is that Aikido in its most pure form (100% "way of aiki") cannot really be violent. That's why, for example in an earlier post, I said I might be doing something closer to aikijujutsu in a situation I was less able to handle effectively. I'd be reaching toward Aikido, but my level of ability might not allow it. I think it's incredibly difficult to do "pure" Aikido. I'm getting a bit excessive in defining things (and I can imagine some people shaking their head at this...sorry folks) :sorry: but this is what I coe up with when i try to define exactly what Aikido is or is not in a potentially violent situation.
Ok, time for me to go eat breakfast and wake up.
Take care all!
Matt

Man of Aiki
06-05-2006, 08:09 PM
"Weapons are unfortunate instruments. Heaven's way hates them. Using them when there is no other choice - that is Heaven's way .... There is logic in striking down something when it has peaked. When someone rides his luck and does evil, you strike him down when his evils have peaked. In that sense, using weapons is said to be also Heaven's Way. At times, because of one man's evil, thousands of people suffer. So you kill that one man in order to let thousands live. Here, truly, the blade that deals death could be the sword that gives life."

-Yagyu Munenori, "Heiho Kaden Sho"

Now that's a samurai, and a great one, talking about the use of weapons.

The purpose of the budo arts as he saw it wasn't simply about how to kill someone.

These were men that trained daily for years in killing arts. Over time they developed almost supernatural skill with their weapons. Naturally this led many of them to consider WHAT PURPOSES could be served by all these deadly skills they had mastered.

What direction or intention will be behind these skills?

What Yagyu Muneori was getting at was that someone who had cultivated such skill and such warrior spirit as that was required to have a responsibilty to the community at large.

Like the recent movie said: with great power comes great responsibility.

The use of those skills must be in accordance with what is best for the community. And what preserves peace and limits evil and chaos is best.

So as Yagyu pointed out, a warrior would not run around and indiscrimanantly cut down anyone who offended him. He would use his skills only on those who would harm the community of which he was a part.

How does this translate to Aikido?

O-Sensei taught that someone who had advanced far in Aikido could kill someone with a single blow. It is a very, very dangerous art in the wrong hands, just like a sword would be.

For this reason, once someone has attained true skill in the art, they must realize they have a responsibility. If a violent situation develops, you should have the skill to restore peace. An Aikidoka with the skill to do something who refuses to do so is like the samurai who could cut down the evil man and save 10,000 lives but decides it's not his business.

manofaiki

statisticool
06-06-2006, 11:29 AM
Confusing the founder's name and the name of his son shows a lack of familiarity with the material you are quoting.


Where do you believe I was confused between M. and K. Ueshiba?


It is also often referred to as an "appeal to authority", which is often cited as a weakness in logical debates.

What the founder, the founder's son, his son, and other masters of aikido have said is highly relevant. There are conditions where such arguments are legitimate, and this is one of them, given that Ueshiba created aikido.

statisticool
06-06-2006, 11:40 AM
I think what we are all wondering is, would you consider using violence to help someone who was being attacked, or would that be non-aiki? (<<<for lack of a better word) I dont think it's against aikido principles to use violence as a means of putting an end to violence, if that makes any sense. But of course i could be wrong.


IMO it all depends on the specific configurations of energy.

Kevin Leavitt
06-06-2006, 01:16 PM
what is a specific configuration of energy? I am not familiar with that.

I believe Ron is talking about Morihei vice Moriteru.

Dennis Good
06-06-2006, 01:38 PM
I think one of the things we have to remember here is that first, with time the definition of words can change and second, how an individual perceives a word can be different. For example 80 years ago, what was considered disciplining a child would be considered violently abusive today. I would not consider restraining a drunk in a bar with sankyo that is starting trouble as violent while someone else would, however a roundhouse kick to the head would probably stop him as well but that would be violent. We may be able to read what O'sensei said but we do not know what HE considers violence and non-violence.

Kevin Leavitt
06-06-2006, 01:43 PM
Yes Dennis. That is exactly the point I was trying to make as well....Aikido changes and paradigms change with time! Thanks for the post it demostrates this very well!

observer
06-06-2006, 03:15 PM
O-Sensei taught that someone who had advanced far in Aikido could kill someone with a single blow.Hi, Brian.
Welcome to the club of people who understand or at least notice that aikido is an art of killing people with a single blow. So, we are not talking about fighting, winning or loosing, but about the ability to spear your opponent's life, about forgiveness, about becoming a guardian of peace. Good post. Thanks.

aikigirl10
06-06-2006, 05:08 PM
IMO it all depends on the specific configurations of energy.

:confused: .....now you're just avoiding the question

George S. Ledyard
06-06-2006, 07:28 PM
Luckily one doesn't need experience to quote those who do have experience.

True, but you do need experience to understand those with experience.

Obviously, you are free to express any opinion you wish on a forum like this... But anytime you participate in a forum which is devoted to a particular area of interest, like Aikido, there will be folks posting who know alot about the subject and those who don't. There will be those that post a lot and those who post a little. There are folks out there reading this who will never post but read whatever is written... In the end it all falls out based on who can present his ideas in the most cogent fashion. In a public forum you have to be able to take the heat and hold your own. Even when folks are polite, as they generally are here, they don't cut you much slack if they think you are wrong or don't know what you are talking about. So read as much as you can, train as much as you can, and keep on posting until folks find it hard to disagree because you really know what you are talking about.

aikigirl10
06-06-2006, 08:08 PM
Hi, Brian.
Welcome to the club of people who understand or at least notice that aikido is an art of killing people with a single blow. So, we are not talking about fighting, winning or loosing, but about the ability to spear your opponent's life, about forgiveness, about becoming a guardian of peace. Good post. Thanks.

excellent post

I'd like to add, that if anyone here has read or even just glanced through the book The Art of Peace , which is basically a compilation of Morihei Ueshiba's sayings, proverbs, poems, etc. which are relevant to aikido, you will see that several times Ueshiba mentions how aikido can be used to take on multiple opponents as well as the effectiveness of aikido. This would definitely hint that aikido involves violence. Does this mean that aikido is wrong or brutal, of course not, it's all about how the violence is used, IMHO.

*Paige*

Kevin Leavitt
06-07-2006, 09:45 AM
All good points George! Thank you for chiming in!

Justin, George has probably as much knowledge on aikido and experience in the art as anyone you will find that will post on aikiweb.

Kevin Leavitt
06-07-2006, 09:53 AM
Yea, I was going to go there in a while too Paige, (the Art of Peace that is!). One of the things I like in that little book is a quote that illudes to the best defense is a good offense. Said much different in that book, but it simply means that we need to be so lethal, so strong, and present such a presence...that the enemy would be foolish to attack. So, that too hints at the violence that is inherent in the art.

So, we could argue about the semantics of what violence is and when it begins. That would be the only argument I could see! Someone might say it is not violent, because it is not put into action. My point is that the mere absence of violence in action does not equate to "non-violence". We still must recognize the violence that is inherent, or a better word, the potential lethality. I think what makes it distinct deals with the word "willingness". That makes the difference.

Of course now we head down the road of pacifism and what that means!

One thing that does disturb me about the whole "best defense is a good offense" is that we really haven't resolved the whole issue of conflict. Just because the person does not attack, does not mean that conflict is not still present....it hasn't manifested itself!

So, we must go beyone this simple quote and that is where compassion comes into play. The ability to keep your enemy at distance with strength and strategy..then have the skills to accept him, understand him, and resolve conflict.

So, If you are reading this Justin, I hope this demonstrates how complex the issues we are grappling with in the philosophy of aikido! It is much more complex that simply "I read that O'Sensei said aikido is about non-violence so it must be true".

aikigirl10
06-07-2006, 11:36 AM
Yea, I was going to go there in a while too Paige, (the Art of Peace that is!). One of the things I like in that little book is a quote that illudes to the best defense is a good offense. Said much different in that book, but it simply means that we need to be so lethal, so strong, and present such a presence...that the enemy would be foolish to attack. So, that too hints at the violence that is inherent in the art.

So, we could argue about the semantics of what violence is and when it begins. That would be the only argument I could see! Someone might say it is not violent, because it is not put into action. My point is that the mere absence of violence in action does not equate to "non-violence". We still must recognize the violence that is inherent, or a better word, the potential lethality. I think what makes it distinct deals with the word "willingness". That makes the difference.

Of course now we head down the road of pacifism and what that means!

One thing that does disturb me about the whole "best defense is a good offense" is that we really haven't resolved the whole issue of conflict. Just because the person does not attack, does not mean that conflict is not still present....it hasn't manifested itself!

So, we must go beyone this simple quote and that is where compassion comes into play. The ability to keep your enemy at distance with strength and strategy..then have the skills to accept him, understand him, and resolve conflict.

So, If you are reading this Justin, I hope this demonstrates how complex the issues we are grappling with in the philosophy of aikido!

Excellent post!

It is much more complex that simply "I read that O'Sensei said aikido is about non-violence so it must be true".

I very much agree with this part of the post.

As a matter of fact Aikido is about non-violence. Aikido or translated as the Art of Peace, is a means of stopping violence, using violence. This is how i see it.

So as an end result, there is no violence. However violence is still used. I can definitely see how things could get confusing lol.

observer
06-07-2006, 11:56 AM
.. , you will see that several times Ueshiba mentions how aikido can be used to take on multiple opponents as well as the effectiveness of aikido. This would definitely hint that aikido involves violence.
It is difficult to take O-Sensei's words litteraly. For instance, I have a different approach to randori. There are two different applications of randori.

First there is a situation often called "Steven Seagal's Students" randori where multiple people initiate the attack all at once. While observing that type of an attack in a dojo, I ask myself a question:
"What is going on?" Imagine what would happen if some of them finally became skillful. We might as well send them all to train to play Football or Rugby and many US teams would pay hefty salaries to have them on board. Have you ever heard of anyone who has gotten such an offer?

The second type of randori that involves taking opponents one by one also doesn't make any sense in real life situations. Facing many attackers at once is unrealistic. The attackers will kick you, punch you if you are already defeated, but if you throw the first punch, others will never risk having a similar experience. By saying, that aikido is an art of killing people with a single blow, I did not mean to compare it to violence in a common sense of the word.

In Aikido there is no middle ground, you either take a life or spare a life. Killing is always the last resort. If you throw someone in blink of an eye while securing their fall, I believe that it can be terrifying enough to the person falling and quite "scary movie" like for the spectators to cease further attacks. Sometimes you may need to repeat the throw, however usually a single throw is threatening enough to resolve the situation.

Kevin Leavitt
06-07-2006, 12:35 PM
Maciej,

The comments about Steven Seagal's students: Good point, I have made this same argument a number of times concerning many internal martial arts and practicality. I too believe if there were people in reality that could do this, then we would see bleed over into other areas of sports etc.

On making the first strike: Now you get into the whole "pre-emptive strike" issue. An interesting topic one we could tie to current politics for the U.S. Anyway..... You could argue that intent and threat of force was the "first strike" therefore, I think it is possible in a given situation to throw the first physical punch or make the first physical move and still be within the ethical boundaries of aikido.

On the "no middle ground thing" I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. Although, I am betting that we are talking semantics here. In my view, there is a spectrum or continum of violence or force. on one end there is no action, on the other their is action. You could also label it no action and lethality.

I think this is an over simplistic view of things. It assumes we only basically have two choices "spare a life" or "take a life". When we spare a life we don't really accomplish peace or harmony necessarily.

Assume we negate someone with power and basically say "I could kill you, but I showed you mercy and I spared your life". Certainly a humane choice if you have the ability to control that situation. However, it does not necessarily fix the situation.

Look at current events for examples. The U.S has the ability to dominate most countries, and we can ever so graciously say "We show you mercy and we will spare you small powerless country". It does not resolve conflict as there is no healing process involved.

I am probably not explaining this very well!

Anyway, in theory, aikido offers us the ability to recieve negative energy, and take that energy and go further than sparing the life, but returning that energy and empowering that person to standback up on his feet.

So, to me, there is much more at stake that simply choosing to use lethal force or not using it. That is what I did in karate! In aikido I think there is a "middle ground" a "return of energy" or a "healing process" that happens after the initial assault that allows us to understand or reconcile or rebalance...depending on how you look at it!

It is what distingushes aikido as a philosophy and a martial art. It is not because it is the ultimate in self defense or practical fighting skills! :)

JohnSweval
06-07-2006, 07:45 PM
Joe,
When I was in my teens, I studied Judo for some years. I thought that this would not be of any use in a "real" fight. In Judo, since it is a sport, you use all your energy to complete a throw or grapple, but like-wise so is your opponent. So, maybe, if you are lucky, you get a decent throw 1 in 20 times - remember they know the counters.
So, I got attacked, and instinctively, I drove into the throw - well, the attacker bounced off a wall about 5' away. Never occured to me, they did not know what was coming nor how to defend.

So in a fight, you might not just "step up" and use Aikido, but there is a very high probability that at some point you are going to find yourself in a configuration where you "know just what to do" and it will come naturally to you - but not them. I would never walk around and feel that I am protected by my "Aikido sphere".

Plus, you have learned how to fall safely, probable one of the greatest skills anyone can learn. This skill alone has amazing power.

Also, there is the physical condition component that you need to consider. Remember, you are training on a regular basis, so your muscles and reflexes are being challenged on a regular basis.

Finally, studying Aikido should help lead you to a path where you can avoid the need for physical conflict, but if there is no avoiding it, conflict is not completely alien to you and you have a "tool set" at your disposal - which gives you an edge.

John

aikigirl10
06-07-2006, 08:04 PM
By saying, that aikido is an art of killing people with a single blow, I did not mean to compare it to violence in a common sense of the word.


Did i compare it to violence in a common sense of the word?
I dont think i did. I didn't even say or imply that you did.

I was agreeing with you.

And i completely understand that you can't take Ueshiba's words literally. Violence today is much different than it was in the early 20th century. But, it's pretty hard to say that there is absolutely no violence in aikido, unless you just don't know anything about aikido. Throwing someone is a violent act, even if it is done with good reason, it is still a violent act. The same applys for pinning someone, or hitting someone with a jo.

I don't see how anyone can possibly say that there is no violence in aikido.

violence

n 1: an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists);
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=violence

Acts of agresson against a person who resists are commonly seen in aikido, not one person here can deny that.

mathewjgano
06-07-2006, 08:55 PM
Acts of agresson against a person who resists are commonly seen in aikido, not one person here can deny that.
Only because I like playing with words: but are we really acting agressively when someone resists our movement? If we perform the mechanics properly, Aikido waza take very little effort, even against great resistance. In my mind, it takes no real agressive action on my part to negate the resistance of an attacker (assuming I do the technique properly).
Other than that, the first 6 or so definitions given on that web page describe an intent to damage, for the most part, with i think one exception being the description of turbulent activity, of which we could argue a throw might be I suppose, but it still leaves room for debate as to what constitutes sufficient turbulence to be considered a "violent" flow.
Ok, I'm done wasting everyone's time now :D
Take care,
Matt
ps-run-on sentences are a specialty of mine, only matched by my pour abilitie too spehl <----for comic effect, I swear! :confused:

aikigirl10
06-07-2006, 09:13 PM
Only because I like playing with words: but are we really acting agressively when someone resists our movement? If we perform the mechanics properly, Aikido waza take very little effort, even against great resistance. In my mind, it takes no real agressive action on my part to negate the resistance of an attacker (assuming I do the technique properly).
Other than that, the first 6 or so definitions given on that web page describe an intent to damage, for the most part, with i think one exception being the description of turbulent activity, of which we could argue a throw might be I suppose, but it still leaves room for debate as to what constitutes sufficient turbulence to be considered a "violent" flow.
Ok, I'm done wasting everyone's time now :D
Take care,
Matt
ps-run-on sentences are a specialty of mine, only matched by my pour abilitie too spehl <----for comic effect, I swear! :confused:

Now you're just nit-picking.

I don't know about everyone else here, but I would definitely want my aikido to be aggressive. If someone comes into attack me, i want to be right in their face with a technique, before they even have time to think. Does this mean it has to be done with a lot of force , no not necessarily. Does this mean it has to be brutal, no of course not.

And the reason I didn't pick one of the first 5 or so definitions is because Maciej stated that he wasn't using violence in a "common sense of the word". Therefore, i showed him and anyone else who was interested how the word ''violence" could be applicable to aikido.

I hope this clears things up.
*Paige*

mathewjgano
06-08-2006, 01:08 AM
Now you're just nit-picking.

Yeah I know :D I was just feeling a bit impish. Osumimasen desu. :p

Richard Langridge
06-08-2006, 02:42 AM
Ok, ok, but is it violent to throw someone who comes in with a lot of energy, and hence gets thrown hard?

Mark Freeman
06-08-2006, 04:10 AM
Ok, ok, but is it violent to throw someone who comes in with a lot of energy, and hence gets thrown hard?

No, it's good fun, the faster you come in, the faster you leave :D

observer
06-08-2006, 11:57 AM
And the reason I didn't pick one of the first 5 or so definitions is because Maciej stated that he wasn't using violence in a "common sense of the word". Therefore, i showed him and anyone else who was interested how the word ''violence" could be applicable to aikido.
I am sorry Paige. It was not my intention to argue. Your post just inspired me and let to express my thoughts. Please notice - by saying: ".. common sense .." I excluded killing from violence to explain my point of view.

observer
06-08-2006, 03:38 PM
Thank you Kevin. You made your point. In a global perspective I agree. The first strike doesn't resolve a situation. However, there is a big difference between defending yourself on a street and fighting a war since in a war we really don't know if the parties are interested in putting an end to it. I just pointed out how a common threat on a street can be resolved with the use of aikido. In most situations on the streets you are not facing skillful fighters at all. Certainly, there are no guarantees, that once you scare a guy, he will not turn around and use a firearm against you. However having such a skill helps, and what is also important, it gives you confidence to stop someone else's street fight, something that you can already give credit to Aikido - a Peaceful Martial Art.

You are right, sometimes a single phrase cannot explain the issue. Certainly, I did not mean the "throw the first punch" as an attack, but as a response to the first attack. Also, by saying that "in aikido there is no middle ground", I just distinguished it from other martial arts. All aikido techniques (!!), selected by O-Sensei, can be, and, in my opinion, must be performed in a way to spare uke's life. Each fall can be fatal so when uke falls to the ground he needs to be thrown with control to protect him from breaking his neck (just like in judo).

Please understand. I do not intend to tell you what aikido is about. This is my own understanding of Morihei Ueshiba's development. Sometimes I see people who try to attribute too much to aikido. For me, aikido is simply a skill. In a threatening situation by showing aikido skills instead of threatening with words, it is possible to resolve a situation. Seeing that more and more people use it may be a good sign for the future.

statisticool
06-08-2006, 05:08 PM
And i completely understand that you can't take Ueshiba's words literally. Violence today is much different than it was in the early 20th century. But, it's pretty hard to say that there is absolutely no violence in aikido, unless you just don't know anything about aikido. Throwing someone is a violent act, even if it is done with good reason, it is still a violent act. The same applys for pinning someone, or hitting someone with a jo.

I don't see how anyone can possibly say that there is no violence in aikido.


It wasn't and isn't just Ueshiba who says that aikido is non-violent, but many other aikidoka, therefore the early 20th century comment is irrelevant IMO. :)

Compare the resolution strategies in aikido to some of those taught by Rutten in a street fighting video of his, for example, where he shows how to shatter someone's knee when they merely talk about your spouse, and how to strike them a half dozen times when they merely tell you you are sitting in their seat, and it is pretty obvious to see what is violent and what isn't.


Justin

Aristeia
06-08-2006, 06:50 PM
I suspect you're confusing Bas's well known humour with reality. Aikido does of course have violent aspects. To say different betrays either a lack of knowledge of aikido or quite a different definition of violence to what the rest of us are using.

aikigirl10
06-08-2006, 10:00 PM
I am sorry Paige. It was not my intention to argue. Your post just inspired me and let to express my thoughts. Please notice - by saying: ".. common sense .." I excluded killing from violence to explain my point of view.

No offense was taken Maciej.

I actually didn't see it as arguing, i just really wanted to state a point lol. Sorry if i came off that way.

*Paige*

Richard Langridge
06-09-2006, 05:16 AM
I'm pretty sure O'sensei said about ikkyo "First smash the eyes". Sorry I don't know exactly where I heard that quote, but I think it's one that's often used.

Richard Langridge
06-09-2006, 05:17 AM
Oh ok it's on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aikido

Kevin Leavitt
06-09-2006, 08:04 AM
Maciej,

I agree wtih your comments....like I think I said, it is probably all semantics. Words can mean alot! I do think that it is not so much the techniques that were chosen by O'sensei, but the intent, and method in which he employed them that best communicates his message. That is what makes the art unique.

Kevin Leavitt
06-09-2006, 08:10 AM
Justin wrote:

Compare the resolution strategies in aikido to some of those taught by Rutten in a street fighting video of his, for example, where he shows how to shatter someone's knee when they merely talk about your spouse, and how to strike them a half dozen times when they merely tell you you are sitting in their seat, and it is pretty obvious to see what is violent and what isn't.

Having seen a few of Bas' videos I have to agree with the humor opinion on this. I just wrote about this in my reply to Maciej. It is not so much about the techniques as it is about the intent and attitude behind them. The techniques in aikido are not particularly special, it is the methodology that conveys the message and illustrates to us in a physical manner the options we have available to make choices when we develop skill.

If you study aikido long enough you will typically learn not to confuse reality with the DO. Meaning that what you practice in the dojo is an ideal along a philosophical path. How you actually implement it physically may be totally different. Again, it is not about what you do, but how you do it.

It is conceivable to fire a gun and kill someone and still be within the confines of aikido. We were just discussing this on another thread which escapes me right at this moment.

Kevin Leavitt
06-09-2006, 08:12 AM
Richard wrote:

I'm pretty sure O'sensei said about ikkyo "First smash the eyes". Sorry I don't know exactly where I heard that quote, but I think it's one that's often used.

I am sure he did. He seemed to really understand the paradox that is present between the evils of violence and war and peace. A fine line. I think aikido does a pretty good job of walking the chasm on this line.

Kevin Leavitt
06-09-2006, 08:13 AM
is everyone having a nice day?

Kevin Leavitt
06-09-2006, 08:14 AM
oh look...we are at 1000! :) couldn't resist! timing and Ma'ai are everything.

Jorge Garcia
06-09-2006, 08:59 AM
timing and Ma'ai are everything.

"Timing and Maai"? I thought it was making 5 posts that did it. :confused:
I admit though that I got a good laugh when I saw what you had done. It reminded me of the Seinfeld episode when George Costanza was at the birthday party when he thought there was a fire. Thanks, you made my day!