PDA

View Full Version : Aikido vs....


Please visit our sponsor:
 

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


Adam Alexander
07-14-2005, 05:04 PM
Since I've started visiting this forum, I've seen a BUNCH of "Aikido vs...." threads. Of course, one group says this, the other says that...

In relation to that, first, I'd like to say: Consider the source. How many of us, after years of training, really understand Aikido to really say what Aikido can do? I doubt there's anyone. I figure, I can only respond with what I think I can do against this or that utilizing the Aikido techniques I know...but none of us know Aikido...Shioda said in the 90's that he was just catching on to it...how many years of training is that?

Find a "Master" and ask him/her the question.

Ultimately, I think to compare one art to another you'd have to know the techniques of both of them...you'd need to be, or ask, a someone who's a "Master" of both arts.

However, seems to me, you could take every technique from one art and say,,"is there a technique in the Aikido repertoire to counter this. If the answer is "no" then the question becomes, does Aikido offer an option that could of been utilized to avoid being in the position where that technique is applicable?

So, for anyone to answer those questions, I hope they've done a lot of homework. That's all.

jss
07-14-2005, 07:03 PM
How many of us, after years of training, really understand Aikido to really say what Aikido can do? I doubt there's anyone.

Isn't that kind of sad?
If no one understands Aikido, who is there to teach?

Shioda said in the 90's that he was just catching on to it...how many years of training is that?
That just means he is (was) still getting better, he was good way before that.

Adam Alexander
07-15-2005, 12:36 PM
1)If no one understands Aikido, who is there to teach?


2)That just means he is (was) still getting better, he was good way before that.


1)If you're going to respond maliciously, atleast put what you quoted of mine in context.

Many individuals may understand a segment of the art--well enough to teach it--however, I doubt there's any that understand ALL of it...particularly enough to know what Aikido's multitude of techniques can do against another art's multitude of techniques.

2)That's right...he was still learning what Aikido had to offer. That was the point.

Ron Tisdale
07-15-2005, 12:49 PM
Its kind of funny...I was just wondering myself what posseses people to post those sorts of threads, let alone respond to them. On the one hand, some of these threads have been very educational about other arts, and about aikido.

On the other...I kind of think they are often the blind leading the blind. I don't think i'm going to be participating in them that much anymore because of that.

Ron (blind enough already)

Adam Alexander
07-15-2005, 01:38 PM
I don't think i'm going to be participating in them that much anymore because of that.

It's not my intention to discourage participation...I just wish people would recognize that they don't know everything (isn't that being hypocritical?lol). I think the threads that have gotten into details such as,'how does Aikido respond to [insert technique here],' is great. It's the 'can Aikido whoop [insert art here]?' questions that really puts the word Aikido in the position of being a term with a fluxuating definition (the definition is limited to the poster's concept of Aikido...however limited.).

In the end, my motivation for the original post is that when I started out there was plenty of nay-sayers who were Aikidoka. In my case, thankfully, I wouldn't listen to them...even though they were sho-dan. Now, I see how wrong they really were. I'd like to think that someone who's thinking about Aikido--who might be a perfect fit--isn't getting a bunch of bad info from a MMAist who practices Aikido a little to "work on his locks," or whatever, and considers him/herself "knowledgeable" about the art and then starts talking about "where Aikido is lacking."

A great example of people who don't know everything about Aikido trying to tell others where it works and doesn't is back in the Pizza Parlor assault thread. I think there was a handful of posts saying "aikido wouldn't work there." Certainly, I wouldn't disagree: Your Aikido wouldn't work there...maybe you don't see the potential and therefore, are limited in the types of energy you can deal with. However, don't say "Aikido can't deal with it"....or, another art.

Ron Tisdale
07-15-2005, 02:18 PM
That video clip is like my worst nightmare (ok, maybe the girlfriend with a knife or gun would be worse, but not much :) ). All you can really do is train hard at the best dojo you can find, try to stay aware, and hope for the best. The fact of the matter is that probably 95% of all people would fail in that situation, regardless of art (outside of gun-fu). Kudos ot the 5% that could actually pull off a defense in that situation.

Ron

Robert Rumpf
07-15-2005, 07:43 PM
To me, the most interesting "versus match" of all is Aikido vs. Aikido.. :) I don't really care about the rest.

CNYMike
07-16-2005, 10:39 PM
Since I've started visiting this forum, I've seen a BUNCH of "Aikido vs...." threads. Of course, one group says this, the other says that...

In relation to that, first, I'd like to say: Consider the source. How many of us, after years of training, really understand Aikido to really say what Aikido can do? I doubt there's anyone. I figure, I can only respond with what I think I can do against this or that utilizing the Aikido techniques I know...but none of us know Aikido...Shioda said in the 90's that he was just catching on to it...how many years of training is that?

Find a "Master" and ask him/her the question.

Ultimately, I think to compare one art to another you'd have to know the techniques of both of them...you'd need to be, or ask, a someone who's a "Master" of both arts.

However, seems to me, you could take every technique from one art and say,,"is there a technique in the Aikido repertoire to counter this. If the answer is "no" then the question becomes, does Aikido offer an option that could of been utilized to avoid being in the position where that technique is applicable?

So, for anyone to answer those questions, I hope they've done a lot of homework. That's all.

Such threads make for a fun academic exerices, and there are enouogh crosstrainers to get some answers based on personal expertise. But I don't see much value beyond that. My Kali instructor, Guro Andy Astle, keeps making the point about how rare martial artists are, and some arts are rarer than others. On top of that, up to 90% off people who start quit within a year, according to a Shotokan sensei I once met. So in most situations you could get into, odds are it won't be with someone who has any kind of training. Or as Guro Andy once put it, "If someone says to me, 'That won't work against Mike Tyson,' I say, 'I agree with you, but I'm not worried about getting into a fight with Mike Tyson.'"

It's fun to think about, but as a practical matter, you probably won't ever have to worry about it. That doesn't mean you can entirely ignore "nonstandard" attacks, but you don't have to drop a brick if you're lineage doesn't cover them, either. As I like to say, I'm taking Aikido for what Sensei teaches, not what he doesn't teach.

Randathamane
07-16-2005, 11:47 PM
I'd like to say: Consider the source. How many of us, after years of training, really understand Aikido to really say what Aikido can do? I doubt there's anyone.

Too right mate.

Aikido is a life long process that none of us can complete. It requires the lifetime work of growing learning and practicing

Even O sensei admitted himself that he will never finish the Aikido journey. If the creator did not finish, how can we?

Personally, i like the idea that i will never finish as it allows me to raise the standard of the next generation that will follow me. If i learn say half, i would expect my students to learn 3/5 through my teaching, their own understanding/ adaption, other instructors and courses etc.

:ai: :ki: :do:

jss
07-18-2005, 01:46 PM
Jean, you are right. My post was a bit malicious. I hope I didn't offend you.
I read something in your first post and after reading your other posts and rereading the first, I read something different.

I agree that we need to be humble and ackowledge our blindness, our biasses, etc.
On the other hand, however, we should not hide behind such an ackowledgement either. (And that is what I thought you might be doing in your first post, but now it see you are not.) This sort of hiding may be one of the factors in the culture of martial mediocrity (but that's a different thread.)
It seems to me that a bit too often the philosophical and spiritual side of aikido leads us away from the martial and physical side of aikido.
[short rant starting here]
Let's talk philosophy and spirituality after ten years of training, when you're aikido is matured, when you have a decent amount of martial skill and ability. But don't feed me some line you read in a book by some 8th dan, don't try to tell me how one year of aikido two times a week has changed your life, just shut up and train and come back when you actually do some aikido!
And that means I should shut up as well. Damn!
[/rant done, thanks, I feel much better now]
To illustrate my point: many people like the idea that gradings are not important, but does anyone below the rank of perhaps shodan has the necessary experience with grading to truly belive this, to have experienced this beyond liking it as an idea?
Not that they don't have the right to an opinion, but still ...
(And I guess that brings me to about where you stand, Jean. :))

Red Beetle
07-19-2005, 01:58 AM
I like this Joep Schuurkes.
He sounds rational.
I think that some on this thread quickly attacked him.


Aikido is complicated.
It can work in the right circumstance.
It takes hard work and study to get good at it.

Yawn.

I think that most people want to be able to practically use their Aikido.
Why not?
I hope they are not training for the "spiritual" part of Aikido.....yeesh!

Red Beetle
07-19-2005, 02:00 AM
Oh,
I would like to see a movie starring Steven Seagal where he has to fight the living dead.
We could call it:
Aikido vs The Living Dead

Picture some of the fight scenes.
You know that would be one fun film to watch.

Red Beetle
www.kingsportjudo.com

Adam Alexander
07-19-2005, 12:56 PM
Joep, no offense. I just figured you didn't know what you were talking about;)

Aristeia
07-19-2005, 03:45 PM
Jean
I understand your frustration with such discussions but I think the approach you're taking in your response is flawed.
1. In cases where Aikido seems to be vulnerable to other arts strategies, to simply say it's because no one really undertands aikido well enough to make it work in such circumstances is of limited use. I mean if someone who's been doing it 10 or 20 years hasn't learned enough to defend against someone who has been training in another art for 2 years, it really doesn't matter if that's because aikido is missing something or because the practioners haven't found it yet. Functionally it amounts to the same thing.

2. The "oh but a Master would have been able to..." approach is similarly flawed. No one will take this arguement seriously until there's evidence of a "master" doing what you claim. This is the sort of response that is actually lampooned by the types of people who start these discussions (along with the too deadly to spar argument)

3. It's a huge mistake to assume that eveyone who thinks Aikido is lacking in some areas compared to other arts is a MMAist who practices Aikido a little to "work on his locks," or whatever, and considers him/herself "knowledgeable" about the art There are people who have been studying Aikido for fairly good lengths of time, in depth, who are happy to admit Aikido's limitations. This is as it should be - as discussed in the "False Confidence" thread.

There are better ways to head off these discussions. For example, I have no doubt that on the whole most aikidoka would be beaten by most bjjers in a one on one engagement. There's no need to get into a discussion of which aikido techniques could be used to defeat the bjj'er if only people understood them properly. The more effective and accurate response is - "so what". And this is the point, art vs art discussions are silly because they are talking about an artifical "what if" that is never likely to happen, and is not what we're training for.

"Aikido vs..." discussions can be usefull exercises and help us to examine our art and get a more realistic view of both it's strengths and weaknesses. But I think you're right in that oftentimes people that start them, do so with the intent to criticise Aikido. Which is silly. It's like saying a 4x4 is a crap vehicle because a ferrari will beat it in a time trial. Same thing here. BJJers can take aikidoka down and aikido doesn't have a good defence to a back mount with hooks in? Ok interesting, but that's not what Aikido was designed to deal with so it's no big.

MTCW

Kevin Leavitt
07-20-2005, 11:13 AM
I was down in Southern Germany this weekend testing for my Blue Belt in BJJ from the Gracie-Barra organization.

Good seminar. Got into a fair amount of Vale Tudo with a couple of pro fighters from Italy. Also had an isareli Krav Maga instructor.

It got interesting when we went into knife defenses. He was showing basic stuff, and I added to it demonstrating how else you could carry it forward with other options. Instructor thought it was silat or kali, I said, "nope" "Aikido".

It was good to see that when faced with the threat of a weapon/"real no rules atemi" that aikido becomes very relevant again.

I really have grown over the past year to find both the weaknesses in my aikido and the strengths. I really llike the grappling and striking I have been learning...it is a good match with aikido.

Adam Alexander
07-20-2005, 12:37 PM
Kevin, I think that was a cool post. That's what I'm talking about...It's "my" Aikido. If there's a problem with it, do what you need to solve it. However, none of us really know whether Aikido (the ideal) has the technique, etc. to close the hole...It's just that you haven't seen it and you're finding a solution...Nothing wrong with that--who knows, maybe what you do (new techniques)is Aikido in another form...I don't know, but I'd be a lot happier if everyone specified "my Aikido."



Jean
I understand your frustration with such discussions but I think the approach you're taking in your response is flawed.
1. In cases where Aikido seems to be vulnerable to other arts strategies, to simply say it's because no one really undertands aikido well enough to make it work in such circumstances is of limited use. I mean if someone who's been doing it 10 or 20 years hasn't learned enough to defend against someone who has been training in another art for 2 years, it really doesn't matter if that's because aikido is missing something or because the practioners haven't found it yet. Functionally it amounts to the same thing.

2. The "oh but a Master would have been able to..." approach is similarly flawed. No one will take this arguement seriously until there's evidence of a "master" doing what you claim. This is the sort of response that is actually lampooned by the types of people who start these discussions (along with the too deadly to spar argument)

3. It's a huge mistake to assume that eveyone who thinks Aikido is lacking in some areas compared to other arts is There are people who have been studying Aikido for fairly good lengths of time, in depth, who are happy to admit Aikido's limitations. This is as it should be - as discussed in the "False Confidence" thread.

There are better ways to head off these discussions. For example, I have no doubt that on the whole most aikidoka would be beaten by most bjjers in a one on one engagement. There's no need to get into a discussion of which aikido techniques could be used to defeat the bjj'er if only people understood them properly. The more effective and accurate response is - "so what". And this is the point, art vs art discussions are silly because they are talking about an artifical "what if" that is never likely to happen, and is not what we're training for.

"Aikido vs..." discussions can be usefull exercises and help us to examine our art and get a more realistic view of both it's strengths and weaknesses. But I think you're right in that oftentimes people that start them, do so with the intent to criticise Aikido. Which is silly. It's like saying a 4x4 is a crap vehicle because a ferrari will beat it in a time trial. Same thing here. BJJers can take aikidoka down and aikido doesn't have a good defence to a back mount with hooks in? Ok interesting, but that's not what Aikido was designed to deal with so it's no big.

MTCW

1)Logically speaking, if I recall correctly, this was an appeal to innapropriate authority...namely, yourself. You don't know what Aikido is or isn't.

Since you jumbled a couple conclusions into that paragraph, I'll keep them under 1).

Regarding the last sentence (and the example that precedes it) "functionally," when you ask an "Aikido vs....." question, the ability of any practitioner (or all practitioners) isn't relevant. The question (Aikido vs...) is simplified..."how does the abstract and theoretical concepts as they are exercised in an ideal group of techniques within this art compare to that of the other?" See there? That's not the question,"20yr Aikido student vs. 2yr. BJJ student, etc.?"

So, apparently the "flaw" in my thinking is that you failed to recognize the irrelevance of what you were saying in relation to the original post.

2)Next argument...

Ahhh, another example of my "flawed" reasoning. Well, I can't remember the name of this fallacy...but it's another fallacy.

I'll save both of us the time.

3)Eh, if Ueshiba was saying that he was still learning Aikido before he died, who am I to argue? I just said that noone really knows it all.

In regard to the rest of the post, you may want to read the entire thread.

Aristeia
07-27-2005, 10:44 PM
Hey Jean, sorry I've only just come across this post so haven't responded sooner.

1)Logically speaking, if I recall correctly, this was an appeal to innapropriate authority...namely, yourself. You don't know what Aikido is or isn't.

Ummm....actually no it's not. Appeal to authority would involve stating that authority. You cannot just call something appeal to authority because someone makes a statement.
But if you want to move the discussion into the language of philosophy of logic that could actually make things easier, so lets run with that.

The point I was making was one of falsifiability. It is a generally held principal of logic and philosophy that if a statement is not falsifiable it has little epistimilogical value. Which is what's happening here.

Your claim seems to be based on two premises
1. you cannot make statements about what Aikido can or cannot do until you fully understand Aikido
2. no one fully understands Aikido.
Therefore
None can make claims about what Aikido cannot do.

My contention is that your thesis is not falsifiable. In other words the end result is exactly the same as the counter claim - that there are things that aikido cannot do. By end result I mean, pure Aikidoka tend to be vulnerable in certain situations and against certain arts. I say it's because it has gaps, you say it's because no one knows how to do it.
This is what I mean when I say the claims are functionally equivalent. It doesn't matter if you are right in what you say because, in practical terms, it amounts to the same thing.

Or let me put it another way. As I get taken down and choked out by a BJJer it's of little comfort to me that Aikido has an answer for it it's just that no one knows what it is yet.





Regarding the last sentence (and the example that precedes it) "functionally," when you ask an "Aikido vs....." question, the ability of any practitioner (or all practitioners) isn't relevant. The question (Aikido vs...) is simplified..."how does the abstract and theoretical concepts as they are exercised in an ideal group of techniques within this art compare to that of the other?" See there? That's not the question,"20yr Aikido student vs. 2yr. BJJ student, etc.?"

I think this is getting to the heart of our disagreement. Let's keep it in philosophical terms. You are taking an a priori approach to what Aikido offers, I'm looking at it a posterori. In other words, you are arguing what you think it should be able to do in theory. I am saying that in practice this is what we observe and these are the lessons we garner from that.
In theory I can come up with any scenario I want. But fighting is something that needs to be tested. It's not something you can aproach from a purely a priori standpoint like say mathmatics. I can't sit at my desk and work out in theory what is possible to do in a fighting context and come up with an efficient martial art as a result. I've actually got to put the theory to the test.
So we come back to the original point. If 2 year practioners of BJJ can consistantly beat 20 year practioners of Aikido, that's something we should be interested in. Saying that in theory Aikido can win is not very interesting if in reality that's not what happens.


2)Next argument...

Ahhh, another example of my "flawed" reasoning. Well, I can't remember the name of this fallacy...but it's another fallacy.

I'll save both of us the time.

So it's a fallacy, but you can't remember which one and I should just take your word for it? Ummm thanks but no (paritcularly given your above track record in mis applying fallacy's)

3)Eh, if Ueshiba was saying that he was still learning Aikido before he died, who am I to argue? I just said that noone really knows it all.

I'm confused as to how that adrdresses my point that it is foolish to assume everyone who is pointing out Aikido has some gaps are dabbers?

In regard to the rest of the post, you may want to read the entire thread.

The rest of the post was throwing you a line, giving you a better way to argue that art vs art discussions shouldn't undermine Aikido than your approach of "Aikido only fails because no one knows how to do it".
I guess you can lead a horse to water...

DustinAcuff
07-27-2005, 11:57 PM
Jean, I disagree that aikido cannot be understood. Any thing that can be coincidered an "art" constantly evolves with the artist. Skills, concepts, principles, philosophy and motivation are always changing, even daily as the artist changes anything from world view to mood to socks. On the technical side of aikido there are only X techniques that can be applied any number of ways. It is the understanding of how when and where these can be applied that keep you learning. On the philosophical side the evolutions are almost limitless. If you have looked at your O Sensei history book by western Christian views he made sense when he was young but got more than a wee bit senile when his hair turned white. From the Japanese perspective with the Shinto or Omoto Kyo background he made sense. The better one understands the culture the more insights one will have into what was going on in his head. The less one understands the culture the more you will have insights into other areas.

But just because what you know is changing does not mean you lack an understanding of the principles. It is like following an artist throughout life who's passion is drawing apples. When the artist is a child the drawing will be simple and flat but recognizable, as the artis grows and matures he will look back and shake his head at what he used to coincider good and now be drawing with depth and feeling, reflecting what life is giving him at that moment, as he goes into old age he will reminice about how naive he was and his drawing will become simpler but carry much more depth but less fire. At what point did the artist not understand the apple even though he said in his last years that he was just begining to understand the apple in his later years? And if he didn't understand the apple then what had he been drawing his entire life?

Adam Alexander
07-28-2005, 01:09 PM
Sorry, I don't have the time or the wind to respond like this.

All I'm saying: Aikido has all the answers...even if you don't see it.

Roy
07-28-2005, 01:47 PM
Sean wrote,

"All I'm saying: Aikido has all the answers...even if you don't see it."

If that is all you are saying, then I agree with you.

csinca
07-28-2005, 02:42 PM
If you believe that aikido has all the answers, then you have found your home and you are a lucky man.

There are others that don't agree and there are even others that feel aikido isn't asking the right questions these days.

I tend to agree with the poiunt I think Mr. Fooks is trying to make which is... it seems like it takes significantly longert training in aikido to find the answers that are found more quickly through other arts. I chalk this up more to training methods rather than the art itself but to each their own.

My main comment though goes back to those that ask the "aikido vs. ???????" question on an internet forum. The only way I see for anyone to really answer that question is to go to a ??????? dojo and find out. If you really want to know how aikido fairs against BJJ, then head on over and take a free introductory class. No need to tell them why. Of course you might actually have to invest a few dollars and maybe even a month of training to get a complete answer, but then you wouldl actually know for yourself rather than reading what a bunch of strangers think.

Of course you may argue that the only answer you can get is how one persons aikido fairs against a small sample of BJJ at one school. But hopefully that will illuminate how silly the original question really is.

Chris

Adam Alexander
07-30-2005, 03:08 PM
QUOTE=Michael Fooks]Jean
I understand your frustration with such discussions but I think the approach you're taking in your response is flawed.
[/QUOTE]

Michael Fooks,

I didn't plan on responding...but, I see where the thread went off, and I don't think it's necessary to respond to the last post (I figure I went off track responding to the first one).

The above quote is where your entrance in the thread began, so, I'll respond where I got off track...

Would you agree that a MA is a group of techniques that demonstrate principles. If you understand those principles, can you apply them in a way that may appear to be outside the technical realm of that art? If so, and Aikido exercises all principles, wouldn't it be accurate to say that Aikido encompasses all techniques?


Regarding the 20yr vs. 2yr practitioner: I think the only relevant conclusion you can make from an example like that is the method of training might be poor...but there's still no way to make conclusions about the art as it represents principles.


Finally, you say that (I think in the last post, but I think the idea was interesting) you can't sit at a desk and make up an art without testing it and say it's the most effective.

I think you're right, in a sense. It'd be falling into the same trap I fell into that you pointed out: That you can't prove it.

However, I think all of what we call "physical laws" are theories that have proven everytime to be true...unfortunately, there's no way to know for sure that they'll hold true everytime...we just take a leap of faith...that's what I do with Aikido.

The principles have held true on occasions I've experienced. The folks who have followed the path before me say that they were still coming to understand after decades of training. For me, that's empirical data being used to make general conclusions.

Aristeia
07-30-2005, 05:32 PM
Would you agree that a MA is a group of techniques that demonstrate principles.

yes, very much so.

If you understand those principles, can you apply them in a way that may appear to be outside the technical realm of that art?

This is where we differ. I'm going to keep talking about BJJ because that's my experience, hopefully you can see the point.
Many people, myself included consider BJJ to be the application of Aiki principals in the context of a fight on the ground. There's a number of very good reasons why this is the case which I've made before if you search my history, or I'm happy to regurgitate them for you if you think it will help the discussion.
When I started training BJJ it was instantly apparant to me that this was Aiki. The only problem was that didn't actually help me perform the techniques. I had no idea how to move on the ground, how to go about breaking the balance of someone mounted on top of me, how to physically apply the principals I all ready had a good understanding. of.

Let me put it another way. You or I could go and give a lecture on the pincipals of Aikido. We could sit people down in classroom with a whiteboard and explain how it all works why it makes sesnse from a physics point of view etc. and they could really get it and understand exactly what Aikido is looking to accomplish and how. But understanding does not imply competence. We wouldn't expect them to be able to go and start using techniques without having had done the physical training right?

Same thing here. Although Aikido has principals that can be applied in many situations we don't train for them. So it is not accurate to say, because I train Aikido and understand the principals I'll then be able to actually apply those principals in an unfamilar context. I have to train for the context just as I trained for our normal one. And there are other arts that can teach you to utilise those principals much more quickly than trying to extrapolate them from standard Aikido training.

If so, and Aikido exercises all principles, wouldn't it be accurate to say that Aikido encompasses all techniques?

Well kind of. Aikido doesn't exercise all pincipals, it exercises the principals of Aiki, so I don't think it would encompass the techniques of Muay Thai for example (although I'm willing to be corrected on this). But I don't think this is what you mean. I think you're asking if it's not true that anything that utilises the core concepts of blending, kuzushi etc can therefore be described as Aikido?
Well in one sense you're right they can. In the broadest sense that they apply aiki type princiapals. But in a more important sense not so much imo. I think it's a little disengenious to describe "Aikido" as encompassing techniques that most Aikidoka can't actually execute.
Aiki concepts applied effectively on the ground is called BJJ. Aiki concepts applied effectively in a clinch situation is called Judo. BJJ concepts applied standing could be both Judo and Aikido. But if we take this broad an apporach then everything is everything else and all distinctions become meaningless.
I've argued that BJJ is Aikido on the ground. But it would be somewhat mischevious to suggest that therefore Royce Gracie won 3 UFCs using Aikido. Yes Aiki principals can be applied in a range of contexts outside our normal training one. But they cannot be applied in those contexts without training in them specifically, and the best way to do that effectively is to cross train. Why reinvent the wheel.

Hope that makes sense.

Adam Alexander
07-30-2005, 06:28 PM
Why reinvent the wheel.

I think that's part of the essence of Aikido (atleast, that's been my experience). You're only told as much as is required to get you to advance a little. However, reinventing what everyone else has done is a part of Aikido as I understand it.

That may be another point of disagreement. I've mentioned my belief on several occasions that the instructors who explain things to you are the instructors who stifle understanding.

I'll respond tot he rest later. I've got to run.

Aristeia
07-31-2005, 06:28 PM
Well I know what you mean but there are limits right. You don't expect people to invent shiho nage for themselves right? You show them the basic form and then add details when they're ready. Same thing here. You're expecting people to discover upa (escape from underneath the full mount) for themselves from aiki principals, when it would make more sense to have someone show it to them, at least in broad strokes.

Adam Alexander
08-01-2005, 12:54 PM
Let me put it another way. You or I could go and give a lecture on the pincipals of Aikido. We could sit people down in classroom with a whiteboard and explain how it all works why it makes sesnse from a physics point of view etc. and they could really get it and understand exactly what Aikido is looking to accomplish and how. But understanding does not imply competence. We wouldn't expect them to be able to go and start using techniques without having had done the physical training right?

I'd like to add something to this example that makes it a closer comparison for me.

If you showed those people photo after photo of Aikido techniques and explained how it was working (I think that's what you're saying) and then showed them photo after photo of different ground positions, then wouldn't they be able to point out where the Aiki principles would be applicable? I mean, if you say they totally understand the imagery and ideas, shouldn't they see the same relationships in photos that you see in practice?

If you'll agree to that, doesn't it also seem comparable that a person of equal understanding of the practical side of Aikido, in addition to the above understanding, would be able to see it and express it on the ground?

Now, I know pictures aren't a very good substitute, but I picked up a book on BJJ. I'm looking at all these positions and it's clear as a bell to me which Aikido technique goes where. Don't get me wrong--there's plenty of pictures where you know your a** is done...but it'd be the same if the picture was of an all-direction that's completed.

I'm thinking that, sure it's a push, but, the recognition is so quick, I think it'd be reflex. It's all the same techniques--just without the same type of unification we have.

I think the disagreement is that I believe if you truly understand the principles and your body, you can apply them on the ground.

Just to see (not that I claim to know them that well), I'm heading down to a BJJ club to play for a spell. I'll report my findings.


On the last question of using the techniques without the physical training. I don't see that as being similar in principle to what we're talking about. I think, as Aikidoka, we have done that stuff--we've trained with grasps to the lappells (sp?), wrists and arms.

Seems like the major difference appears to be that the energy will generally be coming toward you and the redirection (pivot) of energy will be very tight.


On "reinventing the wheel." Absolutely, there are limits. However, returning to the original point of "Aikido vs.," seems like the limitation would be set by the practitioner...not the art.


On "Aiki on the ground is BJJ", etc.: Nice point. If Gracie had stood on his feet and applied what appeared to be an Aikido technique but was definitely in the reportoire of BJJ, then we'd call that BJJ only because of what he trains in. We'd do the same if it was an Aikidoka on the ground. The differentiation is insignificant...I think.

That goes back to the original point: Aikido vs.

I think you pointed it out earlier (if not this thread, another) your position is the training differs. I wouldn't disagree. But, I'd say that that doesn't contradict what I'm saying. If two Aikidoka got together and went to the ground applying Aiki, would it be BJJ or Aikido? Aikido of course--they have no other point of reference.

Would they be effective? I think they'd be as effective as someone training both part-time. I think that's what it boils down to.

Roy
08-01-2005, 05:53 PM
Sean,

Boy! oh, boy!! You sure got a good grip on all this Aiki stuff !! So, you will do great in BJJ.
Please let me know your findings at the BJJ club?

Adam Alexander
08-01-2005, 06:42 PM
Sure thing! Big Fella. I hope if I don't do well you'll start to feel a little better about yourself.

Aristeia
08-01-2005, 07:39 PM
If you showed those people photo after photo of Aikido techniques and explained how it was working (I think that's what you're saying) and then showed them photo after photo of different ground positions, then wouldn't they be able to point out where the Aiki principles would be applicable? I mean, if you say they totally understand the imagery and ideas, shouldn't they see the same relationships in photos that you see in practice?


I'm not sure they would. Maybe. But it's hard to know how to apply Aiki in a situation without an understanding of where the energy is going which is hard to get from a photo. Lets not dwell on this too much


If you'll agree to that, doesn't it also seem comparable that a person of equal understanding of the practical side of Aikido, in addition to the above understanding, would be able to see it and express it on the ground?
The problem is no one can. Because it takes alot of experience to understand the energy flow in that context - it's quite different to standing. *maybe* after years of trying two pure Aikidoka may come up with similar techniques - but again, why take years for something someone can show you in a class

Now, I know pictures aren't a very good substitute, but I picked up a book on BJJ. I'm looking at all these positions and it's clear as a bell to me which Aikido technique goes where. Don't get me wrong--there's plenty of pictures where you know your a** is done...but it'd be the same if the picture was of an all-direction that's completed.


Ok this is sounding interesting. Can you give an example. The book should tell you what the BJJ term is for the position they are in, if you could explain what you think your solution to that position is, it might help us understand what you mean.

. It's all the same techniques--just without the same type of unification we have.
Can you explain what you mean here a bit further? I'm a little unsure, because no form of Aiki will work without proper body unification, be it Aikido style aiki or bjj style aiki. So perhaps I've misunderstood?

I think the disagreement is that I believe if you truly understand the principles and your body, you can apply them on the ground.

I agree that this is the heart of the disagreement. I certainly think I'm capable of progressing faster in BJJ in some respects because of my understanding of Aiki. But I certainly don't think someone can take the principals they've learned in a traditional aikido dojo and instantly make them work on the ground without training. You may have a head start on the untrained doofus, but against someone bigger, stronger, or trained, you'll need to practice and ideally, be shown how aiki is manifested in the physical techniques of BJJ.


On the last question of using the techniques without the physical training. I don't see that as being similar in principle to what we're talking about. I think, as Aikidoka, we have done that stuff--we've trained with grasps to the lappells (sp?), wrists and arms.

Seems like the major difference appears to be that the energy will generally be coming toward you and the redirection (pivot) of energy will be very tight.

Actually the major difference is that you can't move the same way. The first thing you get taught in Aikido is footwork. How to move your body in such a way as to facilitate the techniques. Once you're on the ground you can't step (obviously). You need to shrimp, cut, hip escape, reverse shrimp, base switch etc. There's a whole new series of physical movements you need to learn to be able to move your body fluently on the ground so you can apply aiki (imagine trying to do aikido without moving your lower body, and this is what it would be like trying to fight on the ground without learning these new movements). It's like learning to walk again.


On "Aiki on the ground is BJJ", etc.: Nice point. If Gracie had stood on his feet and applied what appeared to be an Aikido technique but was definitely in the reportoire of BJJ, then we'd call that BJJ only because of what he trains in. We'd do the same if it was an Aikidoka on the ground. The differentiation is insignificant...I think.
Hmmm...perhaps you misunderstand? I don't mean that BJJ is Aikido techniques applied on the ground. BJJ is a set of techniques that are completely seperate to aikido (in the main), but with similar principals - unbalancing an opponent to a weak point, alighing your body againse their weekness, keeping a strong centre, captilising on their likely next move etc. But the techniques are entirely different. My point was you can't claim omoplata as an Aikido technique just because it uses the same basic principals as Aikido.
I would make a case that as the principals are so similar, BJJ techniques would be at home in an Aikido syllabus but that's another discussion. The point is that whatever the underlying principals to a technique may be, if no one trains it in an Aikido class and no pure Aikidoka can pull it off, it seems silly to call it an Aikido technique.

That goes back to the original point: Aikido vs.

I think you pointed it out earlier (if not this thread, another) your position is the training differs. I wouldn't disagree. But, I'd say that that doesn't contradict what I'm saying. If two Aikidoka got together and went to the ground applying Aiki, would it be BJJ or Aikido?

It would be neither. It would be a mess of bodies that quickly degenerate into a strength battle.

Aikido of course--they have no other point of reference.

Would they be effective? I think they'd be as effective as someone training both part-time.

I train both. Not sure I'd say part time. On the ground, I will guarantee you I will dominate any pure Aikidoka whatever the rank. Not blowing my trumpet, I'm pretty average at BJJ, but BJJ just gives you too much of a head start. Plus it makes my Aikido better.

DustinAcuff
08-01-2005, 11:40 PM
Jean, in this respect I have to agree with Fooks.

I've done BJJ for a while and done Daito/Aikido with some Kito Ryu mixed in. The concepts are teh same since both are based on basic jujitsu - armbars always look the same but how you get there is a completely diffrent story. Movement is a pain in the butt until you get used to it. In theory you are right, but once you try it you gain an entirely new respect for ground-fighting.

Not to say that most of your techniques cannot be done on the ground. Kito is a style of groundfighting that was a sister-art of Daito, which aikido is based on. It is kinda like aiki-bjj, same principles, same hand motions, same type techniques, and most of the time you have your opponent neutralized in less that 30 sec.

Honestly I'll never go back to BJJ, it simply doesn't meet my criteria for what I am looking for. Great sport, better than no training at all, and you will get some legitimate skills there, but just not what I am looking for.

Aristeia
08-02-2005, 04:45 AM
sorry to drift off topic for a bit, but Ben if you're still reading this thread PM me and let me know how your shoulder is.

Adam Alexander
08-02-2005, 12:31 PM
Hell of a post. I can't respond to all today. I'd rather take one topic (or a couple quick ones) at a time, complete it and then move on. Does that work?

The problem is no one can. Because it takes alot of experience to understand the energy flow in that context - it's quite different to standing. *maybe* after years of trying two pure Aikidoka may come up with similar techniques - but again, why take years for something someone can show you in a class

I'm not saying that you are...but I get the impression that you're changing subjects--slightly. The question, I think, is can you...not how long.

Ok this is sounding interesting. Can you give an example. The book should tell you what the BJJ term is for the position they are in, if you could explain what you think your solution to that position is, it might help us understand what you mean.

It's not in front of me now, but the first recollection of the top of my head is...

Black is in guard (on his back with his legs around White). White is pressing both hands on lapelle. It's the first move of the book. It's a demo of how to go from gaurd to being on top.

In the postion of Black, the first thing I think is that it calls for a shoulder-grasp, first-control. Black strikes White's face. Striking hand grips the same (R-R, L-L). Opposing hand comes under to break arm's position (and also further breaking uke's balance with was resting on those arms) with the first. The heel on the same side of the first-controlled (?) acts as the base from which to send uke over.

By the look of it, sh'te could maybe hook uke's leg and get some momentum to bring himself up to as uke goes over.

Ron Tisdale
08-02-2005, 12:50 PM
If black is on his back, he has white in his guard (could be open or closed, I'd prefer closed).

From having someone in my guard, if I can hit them in the face, then they can hit me...I'd prefer to extend my hips and push them away so that I don't get pounded by having them in range. Conversely, I might pull them in tight and work for an arm bar or something...it just depends.

This last post illustrates very clearly why the MMA/BJJ crowd are VERY good at what they do...there is an entire language, methodology, positional framework, etc. that they train repeatedly to accomplish their goals. If you are outside of that...it gets difficult enough to discuss, let alone defend. If you haven't spent time with someone in your guard, you may not realize just how much damage can happen and how quickly if you don't push them away with your hips, and how weak your own strikes will be from that position.

Best,
Ron (and I don't even really do this stuff...)

Kevin Leavitt
08-02-2005, 01:45 PM
I have been out of town for past couple of days. Just perused throught this thread.

Here is a thought. You really have to think hard about the dynamics/situation of the fight you are developing.

I cover this alot with my guys in Army Combatives, which is predominately BJJ right now for us.

If I approach the situation from an a civilian aiki standpoint, I don't want to engage uke. I will use footwork and distance/timing to keep him/them away and get to the door and escape. I try not to grapple at all and avoid the fight all together. It forces the fighter to close distance and hopefully go off balance. I will use tables/chairs, door ways, other people to avoid the situation.

If I am setting up a scenario where I am suprised, tackled, or overwhelmed...and cannot control things, or if I am approaching uke to apprehend and he is fighting..well that presents a totally different dynamic. I will always try and keep distance, irimi/tenkan...my preference is for back control as in irimi nage...not go to the ground. However, if I go to the ground/clinch...then things are back to BJJ again.

I like having both skill sets.

As far as combining techniques and pictures in books and stuff...I can see parallells in both BJJ and Aikido...I see no difference principal wise. Where things differ is in philsophy and strategy in most cases.

Sure I can find the aiki technique in every BJJ technique and how you can counter it..what is your point Jean?

It is not aikido vs.... to me..but aikid is the same as.

Aristeia
08-02-2005, 03:52 PM
Hell of a post. I can't respond to all today. I'd rather take one topic (or a couple quick ones) at a time, complete it and then move on. Does that work?
Seems sensible


I'm not saying that you are...but I get the impression that you're changing subjects--slightly. The question, I think, is can you...not how long.
Well it comes back to my point of theoretically possible but practicly so unlikely as to perhaps never happen, amounting to the same thing.
I mean if the time it takes is 120 yearrs does that affect the question of whether you can.
Let me clarify what I said. I don't mean that after years of trainng Aikido maybe someone will come up with something that looks like BJJ. I'm saying take two experienced aikidoka, and have them spend years in isolation just fighting on the ground (not doing standard aikido) and maybe, maybe they'll arrive at some similar stuff. I mean it must be posssible because someone else came up with it in the first place. But it would take such a long time, and still be so low percentage as to make the exercise ridiculous when, as I say, someone down the road could cover off with you what you "invent" in those years in a day and do it better.



It's not in front of me now, but the first recollection of the top of my head is...

Black is in guard (on his back with his legs around White). White is pressing both hands on lapelle. It's the first move of the book. It's a demo of how to go from gaurd to being on top.

In the postion of Black, the first thing I think is that it calls for a shoulder-grasp, first-control. Black strikes White's face. Striking hand grips the same (R-R, L-L). Opposing hand comes under to break arm's position (and also further breaking uke's balance with was resting on those arms) with the first. The heel on the same side of the first-controlled (?) acts as the base from which to send uke over.

By the look of it, sh'te could maybe hook uke's leg and get some momentum to bring himself up to as uke goes over.

Well first of all Ron's right, trading blows with someone in your guard is a bad idea. Secondly they'll either have their head in your chest were you can't deliver any power, or they'll be postured up. If postured up they'll have one hand on your chest and the other on your hips. Your chest is pinned so you can't sit up (say for a choke), your hips so you can't swivel (for armbars). There are of course ways aroun this (winning the grips war) but atemi isn't one of them.
But it's clear to me that this track is going to be of limited use. It's nigh on impossible to have these types of discussion online, you really need to be on the mat with each other, so my bad. Let's call this one a dead end, at least until you actually get to play with some BJJers and pick up some of the other points.

Ron Tisdale
08-02-2005, 04:03 PM
Hi Michael, perhaps you could talk about sweeps/open guard a little bit...maybe that is what Jean is envisioning.

Just a note: there is an excellent summary of some basic chokes from BJJ in this month's JAMA. Also, it really doesn't take much to start to get familiar with the terms, positions, sequenses etc....not the same as training on the mat...but I've found a certain amount of familiararity to be helpfull.

Best,
Ron (again, forgive me if I've got my terms wrong...)

Aristeia
08-02-2005, 04:13 PM
Well the reason I thought this wasn't a fruitful path was because I'm not quite sure what Jean is envisioning, maybe some sort of ikkyo? The lack of clarity is not his fault, it's just hard to do this stuff online.
From a BJJ point of view sure you want to disrupt balance and sweep, or uncross your ankles and play open guard. In both of these instances what is crucial is the use of the feet and the "hooks" (the part of your leg where it curves into your foot). You raise a good point, what Jean's post does contain is alot of arm movements and nothing about the hips and feet, which is what you need to be using to really be effective on the ground. I suspect that while he was doing whatever with his hands he'd end up uncrossing his legs but not doing anything with them and get passed immediately. Just a hunch, like I say you really need to be on the mat to have this conversation properly.

Roy
08-02-2005, 06:59 PM
Michael Fooks wrote,

"you really need to be on the mat to have this conversation properly."

Good point! BJJ training is so different from Aikido training. Aikido is a MA that really almost anybody can do, and do well. On the other hand, BJJ is really a high contact MA, so its not a MA everyone can do like Aikido, it's especially not a MA just anybody can be really good at either (in my humble opinion :) ) BJJ is something you have to "do" to understand, not just theories to understand.

Ron Tisdale
08-03-2005, 10:33 AM
Well, by going back in my mind to my wrestling days, and a very minimal amount of time on the mat with folks who know this stuff, its gotten me this far...

I think if you have any body to body conceptualization of what happens on the ground, you can really gain a lot just by paying attenttion. Sure, there's a vocabulary to learn, and no, you're not going to be a wiz on the ground, but just the basics gives you an advantage over a total newbie, as well as the ability to avoid the major pitfalls.

I guess the real case I'm trying to make is that you don't need to leave your aikido training for a year of solid bjj training...some basic seminar type instruction, getting familiar with the postures and language, and some idea of basic transitions / openings can go a long way to supplimenting your aikido for when you end up where you don't want to be...

Best,
Ron

Adam Alexander
08-03-2005, 12:46 PM
1)maybe some sort of ikkyo?

2)You raise a good point, what Jean's post does contain is alot of arm movements and nothing about the hips and feet,

Geeze, I just reread that description...and now I'm confused.

1)Yeah, something of an ikkyo. The bending uke's elbow would definitely be the objective. However, for the wrist portion, that seems optional...sankyo might be a better choice depending on how uke moves. But, in either case, you need to break the balance with the elbow.

2)It's in there...buried...but it's in there. I mention using the heel of the side opposite the direction uke should be heading.

From that perspective, the involvement of hips...and unification that I didn't realize existed...is cake.

For me, in this situation, the other leg would stay wrapped around uke...low...to prevent uke's leg from spreading out to improve his balance.


Give me a link to a picture of something, and we'll try it that way.


On the subject of uke striking and moving, etc. Agreed, but, isnt' that like walking into an Aikido class, seeing a technique and saying,"Yeah, but I'd never hit someone like that. It will not work."?

I'm offering an example within a very small frame. No doubt, if uke were different, my response would be:)

Further, on "if you can hit, you can be hit": No doubt. However, I think the significance of the strike isn't to do damage (of course, catching a choice point with even a light strike would be nice) but redirect attention momentarily. Further, by getting the hand in between there, seems like it would give you a shield against uke's left for a brief moment.


On another note...

Aikido is a MA that really almost anybody can do, and do well.

Haaaahaaaaahaaaaahaaaaa. ROTFLMAO (I've never, ever used that, this is the first time it's fitting.).

Now I get it...You've never trained. You're a BJJer who's been hypnotized by the delusions of UFCs (No kidding...what's up with the BJJ books and the "greatest art ever?" How stupid is that?).

Here you go Roy...another tip: Read "Dynamic Aikido" by Kancho Shioda (thanks for the correction Boon). And, "Principals of Aikido" by the Second Doshu (Is that how it's said?).

Sure, anyone can "do it well." However, not in the same sense you're using "well" in comparison to BJJ. The person who does "well" (in the sense you're using it for BJJ) in Aikido will also do "well" in BJJ. In fact, the person who reaches high levels of "wellness" in Aikido will not only have the physical ability...but, most likely, be significantly more intelligent due to Aikido's cerebral demand...You know what I mean, right? It's not just memorizing techniques and muscling through them that teaches us...it's a little more complex than that.

Oh my, LOL, keep them coming troll.

Kevin Leavitt
08-03-2005, 03:29 PM
Further, on "if you can hit, you can be hit": No doubt. However, I think the significance of the strike isn't to do damage (of course, catching a choice point with even a light strike would be nice) but redirect attention momentarily. Further, by getting the hand in between there, seems like it would give you a shield against uke's left for a brief moment.

This is not necessarily true. If you control uke's hips and center you can hit him, but he will not be able to hit you effectively.

Aristeia
08-03-2005, 07:04 PM
Well, by going back in my mind to my wrestling days, and a very minimal amount of time on the mat with folks who know this stuff, its gotten me this far...


Hi Ron
I agree,as has been discussed on RMA a few times, it doesn't take much training to have some really good escapes on the ground against a doofus. Which is why I don't get why someone would want to spend years trying to get there by doing stand up aikido when they could get shown it in a day long seminar and save their aikido training for practicing vs the problems aikido was actually designed to solve. *shrug*

Aristeia
08-03-2005, 07:13 PM
Geeze, I just reread that description...and now I'm confused.

Yeah, like I say I think this is all but impossible to do over the net. On the one hand there's confusion as to what people describe, on the other there's the issue of "oh but you'd just" which can go on ad infinitum. Be sure and let us know how your BJJ trip goes though.


[quote]

Haaaahaaaaahaaaaahaaaaa. ROTFLMAO (I've never, ever used that, this is the first time it's fitting.).

Well actually I think you're both being a little silly here. I don't think Aikido is any harder to acquire than BJJ or vice versa. For both all you need is a good sensei/coach, and the willingnes to practice. If I had a newbie come to me and say they wanted to start a martial art and which would be easier to do BJJ or Aikido I'd say give me another criteria to choose from because that's a wash.
Now BJJ will give you street ready Self Defence quicker but that's a different topic (and I actually think Aikido gives you very valuable skills much quicker than it's given credit for if you can convince people not to go technique hunting).
Aikido will give you other things.
But in terms of which one is more accessible to your average jo to start learning - six of one half a dozen of the other imo

in Aikido will not only have the physical ability...but, most likely, be significantly more intelligent due to Aikido's cerebral demand...You know what I mean, right? It's not just memorizing techniques and muscling through them that teaches us...it's a little more complex than that.
.

Jean this is why you put people's backs up. You have never trained a day of BJJ in your life, but here you are claiming Aikidoka are more cerebral, that BJJ is all muscle and not complex. You couldn't be more wrong. If anyone came on and made those sort of assumptions about Aikido having only seen the clip of it on tv, you'd be rightfully p$@sssed at them.
I think you've got good intentions, but you really need to understand you don't have experience in a lot of the things you are making assumptions about. So better to listen to people that have that experience and maybe give them a modicum of respect.

DustinAcuff
08-04-2005, 01:10 AM
Here's a concept for ya'll....done it before in class as part of ground fighting cirruculum:

Ikkyo on the ground- nage flat on back, uke in full mount. Uke rears back for the punch, nage's hands are up around his chest area, nage's feet are flat on the floor with knees up. Uke delivers punch (energy going downward with likely more than a slight bit of offset from good posture) at nage's face, nage deflects/guides uke's hand away from face so that uke's arm crosses his body. In a continuation of the deflection across uke's centerline nage bridges in the same direction uke was deflected in with one leg (Uke's right hand would mean Nage deflects with right hand to right and bridges on left leg) and rolls across his other leg onto his stomach and brings the other hand up to cut at uke's elbow ikkyo style. Essentially nage uses uke's momentum from the downward stike to create the kuzushi then rolls in the direction uke was just predisposed to go. This roll will leave uke extended on his stomach at around a 40 degree angle of of nage's centerline with his arm extended in a full blown ikkyo. Nage will shrimp up using legs to bring uke's arm closer to his own center then apply a gooseneck/corkscrew (palm facing uke with the wrist twisted so that the elbow is exposed even further and the radius and ulna come into opposition against eachother) and apply a cut with his left hand while raising uke's corkscrewed arm slightly to provide a better angle for the cut.

If you can try it with a partner. I think that is about as descriptive as I can get with words. It should be one fluid motion that is initiated when uke pulls up for the punch. If uke throws two punches you can just deflect with the other hand across his center the other way and preform the technique (uke's arms will probably be overlapped if you didnt let go of the wrist from the first hand and he will be locked up). . If you want I can post the mechanics and reasoning I am assuming here, it aint exact but maybe it will help expand some horizons.

Aristeia
08-04-2005, 06:20 AM
, nage's hands are up around his chest .

if by his, you mean uke, nage is about to get armbarred.

rob_liberti
08-04-2005, 08:45 AM
and I actually think Aikido gives you very valuable skills much quicker than it's given credit for if you can convince people not to go technique hunting
I agree with this, but I'm curious what skills you feel they are. I would imagine you are talking about standing evasion (entering and turning) to get to superior position (and remain a more difficult target), practicing the choice to do less than maximum damage, learning to take a great deal of impact by getting smashed on the ground repeatedly, a healthy respect for how ridiculously ineffective surface level understanding of technique is, maintaining full body-resistivity especially in a situation where you have _almost_ lost your balance, etc. What are you thinking is valuable?

I think growing towards the intermediate stages of aikido and BJJ people (advanced beginners being sandan in aikido what in BJJ brown belt?!) the mind/body unification thing is probably similar enough. I always wonder if BJJ goes where aikido can eventually go in terms of much more sophisticated body skills.

I know there is a level of body movement sophistication in both arts up to a point - and up to that point I can see why people want to say they are so similar. I always wonder if given the degree of "checking to make sure it works" in BJJ, if those folks don't put a cap on their development of body movement sophistication - simply because it's good enough (a zillion times better than someone with a few years in BJJ and a bajillion times better than a total doofus) to remain effective, and easier to focus on learning more and more new patterns to stay ahead (or at least with) the other people in that system rather than giving up effectiveness for a while to develop sophistication further. I don't know. It might just be that the world will never know.

Rob

Ron Tisdale
08-04-2005, 08:54 AM
Hi Rob...apples and oranges I think. The major innovations in BJJ (my opinion only) are these (as opposed to traditional judo newaza):

The idea of positional dominance
The sophisticated use of transitions from one position to another and one submission to another
Non-jacketted as well as jacketted wrestling
some added sophistication in chokes

Its not about the type of body skill I believe you are refering to...kokyu and what not. I believe highly trained atheletes tap into parts of that sort of thing naturally...but its not the same kind of total approach someone like Mike S., for example, is talking about.

As to sophistication, BJJ seems very sophisticated to me. Its not all the bruiser, beat 'em up sport that it gets portrayed as. If it was, some of the Gracie standard bearers would be getting whooped, not whooping others.

Best,
Ron

rob_liberti
08-04-2005, 10:02 AM
I didn't mean in any way to imply that BJJ wasn't sophisticated at all, or that it was limited in sophistication in _every_ area. I also see that there is an apples and oranges thing going on, in one particular area (the one that most people are looking at when they tell you BJJ is aikido on the ground) that I see a potential difference towards the intermediate/advanced levels. Maybe they could say we all agree that "BJJ is like aikido on the ground up to a point and then we may never know."

Rob

darin
08-04-2005, 11:52 AM
Aikido is an effective martial art. So is karate, kung fu, bjj, wrestling etc... I think it really depends more on the person than the art.

Kevin Leavitt
08-04-2005, 12:57 PM
Dustin wrote:

Ikkyo on the ground- nage flat on back, uke in full mount. Uke rears back for the punch, nage's hands are up around his chest area, nage's feet are flat on the floor with knees up. Uke delivers punch (energy going downward with likely more than a slight bit of offset from good posture) at nage's face, nage deflects/guides uke's hand away from face so that uke's arm crosses his body. In a continuation of the deflection across uke's centerline nage bridges in the same direction uke was deflected in with one leg (Uke's right hand would mean Nage deflects with right hand to right and bridges on left leg) and rolls across his other leg onto his stomach and brings the other hand up to cut at uke's elbow ikkyo style. Essentially nage uses uke's momentum from the downward stike to create the kuzushi then rolls in the direction uke was just predisposed to go. This roll will leave uke extended on his stomach at around a 40 degree angle of of nage's centerline with his arm extended in a full blown ikkyo. Nage will shrimp up using legs to bring uke's arm closer to his own center then apply a gooseneck/corkscrew (palm facing uke with the wrist twisted so that the elbow is exposed even further and the radius and ulna come into opposition against eachother) and apply a cut with his left hand while raising uke's corkscrewed arm slightly to provide a better angle for the cut.

Situational. I suppose it could work. Maybe on an inexperienced guy. I am able many times when mounted to work sankyo on an inexperience guy and shrimp out. It only works a few times however and in NHB the risk of getting hit is too great to work it.

I'd say your scenario would work on a guy who punches off balance possible. An experience guy won't do this. I'd agree with Michael on the Arm Bar deal with your arms extended up.

Most guys will ride up into your arm pits prior to punching you...negating your ability to roll or do any technique at all. also, a experience guy will keep good posture and control when he punches so you aren't going to grab his center...he has yours!

About the only thing you can really do it start brigding. Maybe you can gain control of an arm...trap and roll him to the guard...that is usually what happens.

As far as ikkyo...one of the best examples in BJJ is the omaplata...(just finished doing three submissions about an hour ago!)

I was also working with a greco roman wrestler today. He showed me a russian...he said it is the basic starting point for all take downs in G-R. What is interesting about it...is that it is Ikkyo!

Adam Alexander
08-04-2005, 12:57 PM
Can you explain what you mean here a bit further? I'm a little unsure, because no form of Aiki will work without proper body unification, be it Aikido style aiki or bjj style aiki. So perhaps I've misunderstood?.

I'd say that if there's no unification, it's not Aikido (this applies to another topic where I misused Aikido also.). However, I learned hand work before I learned body work (unification). So, although I'd agree with you that what I do on the ground is not Aikido (if body isn't unified), it's the result of Aikido training and therefore makes the point that I'm going for.

As far as the hand work goes, I've never really felt that techniques were taught "hand connected to feet" or "hand connected to hip connected to feet." I've always felt that it was "hand in relation to chest"...then the rest gets connected. (Actually, reading "Aikido Exercises for Training and Teaching" confirmed this just today in Yoshinkan...atleast that's my interpretation of what it meant.) So, for me when you say,"Once you're on the ground you can't step (obviously). You need to shrimp, cut, hip escape, reverse shrimp, base switch etc." I respond, that's not a problem, my first understanding of my body, via Aikido, is how my hand position related to my body.

Further, in Aikido, I've learned an incredible amount about my knees, elbows, hips, and the rest of my body as they individually relate to my body.

Keep in mind, again, I'm not saying that an Aikidoka could walk off the street into a BJJ or JJ dojo and start smashing their top students. I'm just saying the basics are there.

However, your issue with what I'm saying is the speed at which you pick up the arts. I don't have an argument against that. If you want to learn some ground stuff, I can't say that you wouldn't benefit from some cross-training (If I knew everything, I'd even say it was beneficial).

However, because you didn't respond to my "walking through water" post, I'm wondering what your position is on it. I'm wondering if you've never experienced a real technique--in either role?

The way you described a technique (being where uke is heading) compared to mine, brings me to interpret that you haven't experienced it, where as I, describe what it feels like to muscle it.

I sincerely do not intend this as an attack. I'm just saying that if that's the case, maybe cross-training has done you a disservice. Possible?

Another thing, in the one post, I clearly mention the heel. Do you know what the heel means to unification in Aikido? I don't know what it means to BJJ, but it's major for us as Aikidoka. If cross-training has done you so well, how is it that you missed it?

Honestly, I'm not trying to be a ****...but I'm totally confused.

After ten plus years, is it possible that splitting your attention has prevented you from reaching the high levels of either art?

Do you think the greats of Aikido could be taken down consistently by the greats of BJJ? (serious question)


That's all for now.

BTW, that last post, definitely true. I was more just talking smack. However, you may want to consider your own advice and be cautious about what you post. On a less pleasant day, I'd of been offended:)

Kevin Leavitt
08-04-2005, 01:07 PM
Jean wrote:
[/QUOTE] Do you think the greats of Aikido could be taken down consistently by the greats of BJJ? (serious question)[QUOTE]

In what rules? what would be the parameters? You have to establish this up front. You pick the rules...and don't say "no rules". cause I'd say the guy who seizes the advantage first, has a superior weapon, or has buddies.

If you are talking empty hand, defined boundaries...only two dudes...well then that is a different story. One we may never know sense we have never seen (or I haven't) a guy who professes to be pure aikido climb into a ring with a BJJ guy or MMA guy. We have plenty of BJJ guys that have...but no aikido guys.

Jean I really don't understand your pontification about the "higher points" of the arts. From your post I'd say you are not all that qualified to judge the "higher points"...(nor am I)....btw...what are the higher points...can you define them? Better yet...can you demonstrate them?

Plenty of us can get on here and talk about the "higher points" theory is great...that is why we have educators in academa....but it is "C" students that usually go out in the real world and put it into practice...I'd like to be able to do both...but if I had a choice...i'd rather be a well rounded "C" student.

In all seriousness...I'd love to have a discussion on what the "higher points" of aikido or MA are. How do we know when we get there? What happens to us once we reach there?

rob_liberti
08-04-2005, 01:08 PM
Do you know what the heel means to unification in Aikido? I don't know what it means to BJJ, but it's major for us as Aikidoka.I'm curious. What about the heel is so important for unificaiton, in your opinion? Compared to say the ball of my foot? or my ankle? knee? hip? spine? Please elaborate.

Rob

rob_liberti
08-04-2005, 01:13 PM
I'd love to have a discussion on what the "higher points" of aikido or MA are.My opinion is that intermediate points of aikido are that you can avoid directly pushing, pulling, lifting, yanking, cranking (using sudden and jerky movements), threatening (with non-violence?!), and still be able to unfiy with the partner in such a way that they cannot do much about the overall movement because they are continueing to contribute to it. Higher than that, well, I think that you can do those thing (being true to principle) against people who are actively trying to resist you and hurt you. What do you think?

Rob

Adam Alexander
08-04-2005, 01:20 PM
Kevin, I'd like to think that's it's not "pontification."

But, on the "higher points": I think the levels that are always described by people who've been uke for those people..."just when I was about to make contact," "this time I thought I had him," "it was like floating in the air," "He always had his balance"...those types of levels.

There's occasions in your training where something happens and it seems so perfect that you know it must be "it".

Regarding Rules: Take it at face-value...assume that which hasn't been mentioned.

Regarding the "C" student: Sure. Then we all should shut off our computers.


Rob: It's where motion is rooted in an advancing movement (could be the case with backing up too...I don't know yet.). Sure, you've got the toe and ball to the floor, but you don't add the ankle (an unnecessary joint) for forward-motion unification.


Honestly guys, I'm not trying to be rude about any of that. It's all serious stuff to me...worth sincere discussion.

Kevin Leavitt
08-04-2005, 01:34 PM
thanks for the description Jean. Believe it or not, it happens in BJJ too! If you get with a really skilled buy like Royce Gracie...he will throw you around like a rag doll and it will feel like you are floating...no different from aikido.

The problem with BJJ is mainly that it exploded so fast that you have lots of good dudes out there that have not achieved the mastery of 20 years of training full time. Aikido tends to be a more etheral and mature art. It has been in the states for a while now and we have many, many good practioners.

BJJ though is still in it's infancy...but some really good guys are coming along.

I am really not following you on the heal thing. Are you talking about rooting the connection to the earth...that kind of thing?

Adam Alexander
08-04-2005, 04:17 PM
I don't think "root" was a good word to use. I figured, after writing it, that you could also say that movement is rooted in the center, etc. Awful confusing.

If you push a wall, to get the most power, you don't get the ball of the foot involved (not in the path of power atleast), you push against the heel.

I hope that's better. It's been difficult enough to get the sensation while training, let alone describe it:)

DustinAcuff
08-04-2005, 06:03 PM
To clarify: nage's hands are at his (nage's) own chest, not way up in the air. Also the MMA guy is always overbalanced/off-balanced foward when they punch from the full mount. I am well aware of how the mount works and how MMA operates, been there done that. It can be done, but you have to remember the rules for doing any technique, particularly 1. Create one heck of an offset- take the wrist/fist coming at you and direct it as far across uke's body as possbile, try to make it contact the floor outside the line of your shoulder 2. Keep it fluid - bringing the arm that far across his body releases the pressure on yours so that if you roll/bridge (do not shirmp or it will not work) with uke's arm (which should be fully extended) and body (offset already) lateral resistance is almost nullified. 3. Lock Uke up NOW - if you are dealing with someone who managed to get you on the ground and mount you he is dangerous and has some experience on the ground, you cannot afford to be nice or peaceful, put on that ikkyo until his arm is about to break and he ceases all movement -- he stops or loses his arm

This is not by any means meant to be a defenative way to slap ikkyo on a MMA/BJJ person at all. It is just a simple drill to help someone learn to apply ikkyo on the ground and learn the principles of motion on the ground and where the energy is. This is just like the armbar from the guard that they teach you when you start BJJ or ikkyo when you start Aikido. I've seen plenty of armbars from the guard exactly as taught to the beginner. As I said, try it with a partner in a cooperative atmosphere and see what you think, dont knock it until you have tried it.

Roy Dean
08-04-2005, 06:24 PM
"I always wonder if BJJ goes where aikido can eventually go in terms of much more sophisticated body skills."

Let's look at the development of coordinated body skills in BJJ, for those interested parties:

White belt and blue belt: Everything is done with the hands, pushing for escapes, pushing the legs down to pass guard, etc.

High blue and purple belt: The legs are discovered, and used more for sweeping, passing guard, and manipulating balance. Palms of hands and soles of feet are the dominant tools.

High purple and brown: More proficient use of all appendages, particularly the knees, elbows, and head. Knees are used for pushing and pulling forward, backwards, left, and right; the instep of the foot is used more for lifting, and the head is used as a third hand. Guard passing is done with far less use of hands, and can often be accomplished using only your legs, while your arms are immobile and anchored under their torso. To be able to isometrically hold and apply pressure with one half of your body while being fluid and mobile with the other is a challenging aspect of physical coordination.

Black: I'll let you know when I get there...

RonJon, as far as Aikido giving you the basics of BJJ, I think you're partially correct, but not in the way you'd expect. The taijutsu skills and footwork of aikido have little bearing (initially), to the ground.

It's the ukemi that sets Aikidoist ahead on ground. Knowing how to roll, how to flow with resistance, and how to generate momentum by turning your body into a ball is the greatest asset Aikidoists have.

Humans are the rationalizing animal- we can convince ourselves of anything. Experience has been my greatest instructor, truth stick, and humility device. Go to a BJJ school and roll around. Test things out. Enter a submission grappling tournament (all Aikido techniques are generally allowed). Do it! You will learn more than you than you think from your endeavors. Good luck!


Sincerely,

Roy Dean

csinca
08-04-2005, 07:16 PM
Go to a BJJ school and roll around. Test things out.

Best information in these three pages. If your question is about another art, substitute it in place of BJJ...

Chris

Ron Tisdale
08-05-2005, 08:24 AM
Dustin and Roy, nice posts.

Ikkyo is an arm bar. If you set it up correctly, works like a charm. Especially if you combine the ikkyo entry with hiji shime, ude garame, ude osae.

Best,
Ron

Adam Alexander
08-05-2005, 01:31 PM
Bright as the sun and you still couldn't show a blind man light.

Come on folks. Did you read the posts talking about knees, elbows, etc.? Oh!?

Did you compare my Aikido experience to yours?

What is it, you're dropping in without responding to the points already made?

Adam Alexander
08-05-2005, 01:37 PM
My opinion is that intermediate points of aikido are that you can avoid directly pushing, pulling, lifting, yanking, cranking (using sudden and jerky movements), threatening (with non-violence?!), and still be able to unfiy with the partner in such a way that they cannot do much about the overall movement because they are continueing to contribute to it. Higher than that, well, I think that you can do those thing (being true to principle) against people who are actively trying to resist you and hurt you. What do you think?

Rob

I think the unification is just a preliminary step in a technique. After that's accomplished, uke is there for you to do what you see as necessary--push, pull, twist, etc.

I reread your question about the significance of the heel...I previously ignored that it was a question about comparison. All of them are important, however, I think someone experienced with unification would have recognized what mentioning the heel signified. That's what the point of the original post was...not to say that one thing's less important than another.


One other thing, on the importance of the heel vs. ball of foot/toe. I think, in my desire to get to my point, I expressed under-estimation in the importance of the ball/toe. That's not the intent...more intended to say that power flow down a path. If your knee is the last point, then power will be fulcrumed there, if the heel is the last point, then from there.

Ron Tisdale
08-05-2005, 01:50 PM
Hi Jean,

The post before the last one has me a little confused...what exactly is it in reference too?

Sorry,
Ron

Adam Alexander
08-05-2005, 01:53 PM
Roy Dean mainly.

csinca
08-05-2005, 02:13 PM
Since I've started visiting this forum, I've seen a BUNCH of "Aikido vs...." threads. Of course, one group says this, the other says that...

In relation to that, first, I'd like to say: Consider the source. How many of us, after years of training, really understand Aikido to really say what Aikido can do? I doubt there's anyone. I figure, I can only respond with what I think I can do against this or that utilizing the Aikido techniques I know...but none of us know Aikido...Shioda said in the 90's that he was just catching on to it...how many years of training is that?

Find a "Master" and ask him/her the question.

Ultimately, I think to compare one art to another you'd have to know the techniques of both of them...you'd need to be, or ask, a someone who's a "Master" of both arts.

However, seems to me, you could take every technique from one art and say,,"is there a technique in the Aikido repertoire to counter this. If the answer is "no" then the question becomes, does Aikido offer an option that could of been utilized to avoid being in the position where that technique is applicable?

So, for anyone to answer those questions, I hope they've done a lot of homework. That's all.


I'm just jumping in here and saying that some of that homework be done on someone else's mat. If you want to evaluate aikido vs. BJJ (in this particular case) then you also have to have an understand of BJJ, and you need to get into a BJJ class to do that homework.

Going back to the Kali thread, if you want to understand how aikido provides options against Kali (or a stick oriented art) then your homework should include some time in and with that art.

Chris

Adam Alexander
08-05-2005, 03:17 PM
I'm just jumping in here and saying that some of that homework be done on someone else's mat. If you want to evaluate aikido vs. BJJ (in this particular case) then you also have to have an understand of BJJ, and you need to get into a BJJ class to do that homework.

Going back to the Kali thread, if you want to understand how aikido provides options against Kali (or a stick oriented art) then your homework should include some time in and with that art.

Chris


Geeze. What you're responding to is a tangent from the initial idea. The tangent seems to be an effort to demonstrate that Aikido principles can be practiced by an Aikidoka on the ground...it was not an assessment of BJJ or any other art beyond that.

Regarding the Kali thread (which should probably have been stated there): A point of this thread...and a point a made in that one...is that all arts are rooted in body movement. Aikido trains to recognize body movements. Unless Kali or any other MA has figured out a way to contradict the thus-far ways in which the human body moves, regardless of weapon held, Aikido trains for it.

You should be practicing right now instead of playing.

Hehehe.

csinca
08-05-2005, 04:14 PM
Okay, I suggest that the "homework" that you mentioned in your initial post might include experiencing other arts and it would appear you disagree with me. If you are of the opinion that you can find everything you are looking for in aikido then life is good.

Have a great weekend!

Chris

Roy Dean
08-05-2005, 06:42 PM
Bright as the sun and you still couldn't show a blind man light.

Come on folks. Did you read the posts talking about knees, elbows, etc.? Oh!?

Did you compare my Aikido experience to yours?

What is it, you're dropping in without responding to the points already made?


I am choosing to respond to specific questions, where I feel I have experience that may be useful to others.

RonJon, listen up. You may think you're particularly talented, or disciplined, or have some kind of cerebral/conceptual edge because of your devotion to Aikido. Believe me, many many many posters on this forum have been where you're at and gone far, far beyond. I would display a little more humility, as some highly experienced budoka have openly offered insights that could really put you ahead in the learning curve. I am not the blind one, my friend.

If you really want to compare experiences, Aikido or otherwise, I am certainly game. But people can talk or post for hours and not really achieve ANYTHING if the parties involved are closed off to what's being offered.

If you really want to know the answers to your questions, you have to FEEL them, then you'll realize some degree of truth. Actually experience techniques. Enough with the books and anecdotes. They'll cast an Aiki-spell on you that will detach you from reality. Ground yourself through testing your skills. From the heel up.

You have an open invitation to come to my grappling class, where I teach a BJJ curriculum to many talented and dedicated Aikidoka. They see the light, recognize the value of cross-training, and grow from the alternate training methods offered. I can only hope you will evolve into such an open minded Budoka.

Sincerely,

Roy Dean
www.jiaiaikido.com
www.royharris.com

willy_lee
08-06-2005, 12:52 AM
I was also working with a greco roman wrestler today. He showed me a russian...he said it is the basic starting point for all take downs in G-R. What is interesting about it...is that it is Ikkyo!
Love the Russian tie -- if it's what I think it is, also known as two on one? I think of it as "upside-down" ikkyo, or "ikkyo after I've screwed up the normal ikkyo".

sorry about the slight OT, now return you to your regularly scheduled argument^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussion.

=wl

Kevin Leavitt
08-06-2005, 08:48 AM
agree with you Roy.

Nothing wrong with aikido...and nothing wrong with cross training. It is all depended on what achieves your goals.


WIlly: yea sounds like we are talking about the same thing.

Adam Alexander
08-06-2005, 04:25 PM
If you train in two MAs, you will limit your growth in such a way that you will not catch on to either.

That's it. I this thread has ended up demonstrating that.

Thanks folks. Your help has been appreciated.

Roy Dean
08-06-2005, 07:07 PM
"If you train in two MAs, you will limit your growth in such a way that you will not catch on to either."

Minoru Mochizuku would disagree, as would Morihei Ueshiba. But what do they know...

Aristeia
08-06-2005, 07:42 PM
If you train in two MAs, you will limit your growth in such a way that you will not catch on to either.

That's it. I this thread has ended up demonstrating that.

Thanks folks. Your help has been appreciated.

:rolleyes:

DustinAcuff
08-06-2005, 11:01 PM
Wow! I though this thread proved that we did not know enough aikido to ever claim that we knew anything about it....did I miss something??? I also thought it was supposed to prove that you could not make an Aikido vs ? post because since you don't know aikido you cannot know if you could defend yourself because it might not be "true" aikido??

And as to training 2 MAs keeping you from progressing in either: the samurai were expeced to be proficient with the sword (kenjitsu), spear (sojitsu or yarijitsu), bow (kyujitsu), swimming, horsemanship, knife (tantojitsu), staffs (bo and jo jitsu), and to top it off they were expected to have a functional knowledge of the courtly disciplines -- calligraphy, poetry, literacy, etc. when they were not at war. Sokaku Takeda was said to have mastered all 18 traditional martial arts -- I dare you to tell him or anyone in his faimly that they are stupid and hindering themselves because Daito generally comes complete with all the basic weapons curriculum as well as jujitsu and aikijujitsu levels. O Sensei at the least studied the sword, spear and Daito Ryu. I agree that training in two seprate arts is in general not a good idea, but since MAs are a hobby and not a lifestyle anymore it is sometimes the only way. It is better to study one thing at a time and really throw yourself into it, but it just isn't possible most of the time if you value eating or if you need a wide variety of skills relatively quickly.

Roy
08-06-2005, 11:33 PM
Dustin,

Good point :) Ueshiba did study Daito ryu Aikijujutsu! I believe under Takeda? Aikido encompasses quite a bit more than Aikido. I agree that cross training in MA, will take time, or focus away from a single MA training, and one will probably not master either by doing so. But aside from that, where does this negative Idea of cross-training come from?

DustinAcuff
08-07-2005, 12:26 AM
There is nothing wrong with crosstraining! What gets me irritated is people who keep saying that aikido will be beaten by almost any other art or random brawler. Or that aikido is nothing but a small set of skills that are only effective when applied with force and in conjunction with other skills. Nobody has yet said that if O Sensei went up against ??? he would be beaten, or that the powers that be in the aikido world would be beaten by ???. If a person with six months experience can throw a grown man across the mat today, why can he not throw a grown man in a bar across the room with 5 years of throwing people across the room?

A large part of my frusturation probably comes from the fact that I am not being taught in a normal manner by the average person and I am definately not being taught aikido. I am being taught DR by a 5'6" 140 lbs bouncer/police officer who has worked in situations that required a no strike policy for the last 20 years and who hated being trained in the traditional way because it was no longer applicable.

Yep, Ueshiba was under Takeda for quite a while until he (U) became very caught up in the Omoto-Kyo.

Kevin Leavitt
08-07-2005, 10:39 AM
Dustin, applicable for what?

It depends on your goals. I study much differently with my Army Combatives program than I do in aikido. One does not negate the other though.

What matters is your personal goals.

If it is to become an effective bouncer, police officer, or to develop skills as a member of the military to assist you with clearing buildings, then aikido is probably not the most effective methodology for training. Certainly there are aspects of the art that are. I always draw from my aikido background to teach guys, but I am not doing aikiDO.

If your focus is in studying the path or way to peace and harmony...I can really think of no bettter way than aikido. Taiji Chaun is a bit esoteric for me it kinda skirts the whole conflict thing and is really like a PhD program. Aikido strikes a good balance between the internal skills, center/balance and principles and dealing with attacks....(sort of like a Masters Degree). Where as karate DO, tends to be more external.

It is not Aikido vs..... it is really ridiculous to take a DO art and apply it to a limited scenario.

I'd say the traditional methods are relevant to the traditional goals.

What we are finding today is that as people mature in the martial arts in the west...that there is much more out there that can be accomplished and there is no one path. Guys like your instructor have found that the traditional ways are not the best way to train for those that have goals other than following the DO.

What we see is that MMAs are becoming legitimate in their own right...it does not discredit the DO, but may discredit it as a path for a particular individual.

I find it interesting that DO arts evolved from the SU arts. We saw the DO arts brought to the west really since WWII. Now we are seeing the DO arts evolve back into the SU arts as those that have studied them are rediscovering the roots of what the DO arts were based on!

DustinAcuff
08-07-2005, 01:55 PM
What we are finding today is that as people mature in the martial arts in the west...that there is much more out there that can be accomplished and there is no one path. Guys like your instructor have found that the traditional ways are not the best way to train for those that have goals other than following the DO.

Exactly! And keep in mind I'm in a SU art not a DO art.

I find it interesting that DO arts evolved from the SU arts. We saw the DO arts brought to the west really since WWII. Now we are seeing the DO arts evolve back into the SU arts as those that have studied them are rediscovering the roots of what the DO arts were based on!

I think that it is possible that the DO arts are the same as they always were, but for a time DO arts became more of a cult-like spritual movement because in the West the understanding of the principles and the cultural connotations were lost. Just a thought.

Kevin Leavitt
08-07-2005, 02:09 PM
i suspose it is possible....i think though that there are many who went to the DO arts (and plenty of people that are still involved in them) because it was the only game in town and they frankly do not/did not know the difference.

I find the majority of the conversations we have here on aikiweb are over people confused in their paradigm and expectations of what DO and SU arts are.

I believe simply that there are people out there now that have figured it out and have the experience to teach things now.

Adam Alexander
08-07-2005, 02:15 PM
Consider the source of your info.

If you encounter one person that knows an art well enough to cross-train, that's probably rare. If you know a person who know two arts well enough to direct you in both to high levels...well, I'd check their credentials.

L. Camejo
08-07-2005, 02:26 PM
I think that it is possible that the DO arts are the same as they always were, but for a time DO arts became more of a cult-like spritual movement because in the West the understanding of the principles and the cultural connotations were lost. Just a thought.
Extremely well said imho. From my understanding, the difference is a lot more subtle than some westerners may want to believe.

LC:ai::ki:

Keith R Lee
08-11-2005, 08:23 PM
Roy Dean
www.jiaiaikido.com
www.royharris.com

You're a student of Roy Harris? I'm jealous! I've got his video on leg locks and it is great. Roy Harris seems to be a very gifted instructor from the videos I have seen of him and the articles I have read that were written by him.

I have to ask, have you had discusssions with him in regards to aikido? His opinons on it's training methods? Techniques? I think it would be great to talk to him about it.

Aristeia
08-11-2005, 08:28 PM
Roy Harris seems to be a very gifted instructor from the videos I have seen of him and the articles I have read that were written by him.

True dat. Ask anyone what instructionals a BJJ newbie should look at and Roy Harris is usually the first name out of their mouth.

Roy Dean
08-12-2005, 10:11 AM
Keith and Michael,

Indeed, I am very fortunate to train under Mr. Harris. He truly is a young master and gifted teacher, I can't say enough about how he's advanced my BJJ skills. He's a living example that you can train in multiple arts and achieve expert status in each.

I've talked with him at length about Aikido, and his take (as well as Dan Inosanto's) is this: It all boils down to training method. All arts can be effective, but you have to do attribute training to fuel your techniques, and do plenty of non-resistant repetitions (kata) before graduating to a "live" environment. But that last step has to take place.

Whenever he gets kotegaeshi on someone while grappling, Mr. Harris playfully shouts "AIKIDO!" as the person goes down. It's also on some of his instructionals. He loves that lock and loves to show that yes, these techniques DO work. It's all about how you train them...

Roy Dean

Lyle Bogin
08-12-2005, 12:05 PM
The decision to study only one art should be made based on an understanding of that arts advantages and it's limitations. Limitations are a big part of aikido practice, and I focus on aikido training because of them. Having enjoyed the taste of my own blood a few times, I kinda dig the fixes in the game.

Aristeia
08-14-2005, 07:15 PM
Roy - yes I've noticed the Aikido calls in the BJJ 101 tapes. I myself have been known to let forth with the requisite "Aikido Wins!" call when I get a wristlock while rolling. At one of the places where I train there's a BJJ purple (judo blackbelt) who knows I'm an Aikido guy so takes great delight in wristlocking the hell out of me. Just goes to show, once you control position you can finish pretty much any way you want to :-)

Jorx
08-15-2005, 02:08 AM
No disrespect to Roy Harris - he has done very much for the BJJ community. It's just for example me and my teachers completely disagree on his training methods :D

Also... I would watch his instructionals when suffering from insomnia and be surely cured :D

Just to point out that his way is not the only way...

BTW... I also heard that Michael Jen, a student of Roy Harris (who IMHO has much better instructionals than Harris) when he used to compete back in the day he yelled after a win by wristlock in competitions "Aikido wins!" everyone else seemed pissed :D

Aristeia
08-15-2005, 05:48 AM
what is it about his training method you disagree with Jorgen, out of interest...

Roy Dean
08-15-2005, 11:33 AM
Jorgen,

Yes, there are some that disagree with his training methods, but they've been effective for him, and while I believe "aliveness" is necessary, without repetition at some point in your training, the precision of technique suffers. Matt Thornton and Roy Harris disagree strongly on this point.

Michael Jen has NEVER competed in a BJJ or submission grappling tournament. He did do a few Judo competitions as a brown belt in BJJ, though, when he was working out with the San Jose State Judo team.

I'm glad you like his instructionals, though. People like different instructionals for different reasons. Some like concepts, some like to be entertained, some like to see as many different techniques for their dollar as they can. For some reason, most of Mike Jen's videos remind me of a private lesson with Joe Moreira. Joe is an encylopedia of techniques!

Roy Dean

Aristeia
08-15-2005, 07:29 PM
So the detractors of Roy Harris have a problem with the mix of drilling/live training?

Keith R Lee
08-15-2005, 08:58 PM
Speaking of Mr. Harris and Aikido wrist locks, I found this browsing around over at his site.
http://www.royharris.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=924&Itemid=163

:)