AikiWeb Aikido Forums

AikiWeb Aikido Forums (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/index.php)
-   General (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   So What Is a Fight Anyway? (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11562)

Joe Bowen 01-04-2007 08:12 AM

So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
I saw the following posted on in another thread and I feel the need to comment on it. I know some people might interpret this as an attack on the poster but what I'm trying to do is use the ideas presented here to elucidate some things.

Quote:

I am an aikidoka and a BJJ dude. I could do a video, lets say Michael and I both got together to do one. I could be his fully resistive Uke and we could agree that he would strickly use aikido principles. Lets say I am free to hit him and feint and all that stuff, grapple and take him down. What would it look like? I know most of you want to see Michael continue to maintain the same stylized Aikido that we all say "hey that's aikido". Fact is, I believe, that what you would see would be clinch, takedown, dominate, submit.
Michael would say, cool, my aikido works, I'd say cool good aikido Michael. All you watching would say "hey that is MMA, I thought they were going to show aikido!"

Joe Bowen 01-04-2007 08:38 AM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
Let me expound on the post as it ended up getting posted before I was finished (damn the international computer conspiracy ;) )

The crux for the previous post is that "Fights are simple really...just go watch a bunch on Youtube. close distance, clinch, takedown, submit. Say it again five times. (this is my mantra these days!)" This is incorrect, in my opinion. The original post's intent is to get people to break their attachment to how Aikido should look and realize that real fights look like MMA, but what the poster is doing is falling into his own attachment to MMA. Fights can manifest in a multitude of ways. Many do not involve any type of grappling whatsoever. Heck, even most UFC fights end in a "ground and pound" or a Knock out. So, free your mind and your ___ will follow. On most boards people associate MMA with real fighting because we're not really all that violent, but go behind the prison wall and see how many tap outs you'll find. No rules in a fight, but we don't make that association because we really don't fight. We compete, we practice, we play, but not fight. All the rest is just semantics.

paw 01-04-2007 08:54 AM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
Quote:

Joseph Bowen wrote:
Let me expound on the post as it ended up getting posted before I was finished (damn the international computer conspiracy ;) )

The crux for the previous post is that "Fights are simple really...just go watch a bunch on Youtube. close distance, clinch, takedown, submit. Say it again five times. (this is my mantra these days!)"

I strongly disagree.

If I understood it correctly, the poster you quoted was saying "if I'm allowed to have a wide range of attacks and choose when and where to apply those attacks against someone who is using aikido. The result will not look like the aikido that practiced in a dojo. But it would still be aikido.

Regards,

Paul

MM 01-04-2007 09:05 AM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
Hi,
I'll post the full quote for reference. It's from here:
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpo...2&postcount=24

Quote:

Kevin Leavitt wrote:
I am an aikidoka and a BJJ dude. I could do a video, lets say Michael and I both got together to do one. I could be his fully resistive Uke and we could agree that he would strickly use aikido principles.

Lets say I am free to hit him and feint and all that stuff, grapple and take him down.

What would it look like? I know most of you want to see Michael continue to maintain the same stylized Aikido that we all say "hey that's aikido".

Fact is, I believe, that what you would see would be clinch, takedown, dominate, submit.

Michael would say, cool, my aikido works, I'd say cool good aikido Michael. All you watching would say "hey that is MMA, I thought they were going to show aikido!"

that is the trouble with this paradox I think.

Aikido is a methodology to teach principles. These principles are universal and apply to MMA, BJJ, and any other thing you do, even picking up a heavy box.

I think we have to be very careful not to get tunnel vision and start thinking of aikido as a style of fighting or a method of actual combat.

One of the big problems with the methodology of aikido is that we form attachments to it, and start thinking of it in ways it was not meant to be thought of. We fixate on this and project our fears, personalities, and energy on this concept that really does not exsist (aikido concept that is). We try and make it something it is not.

This causes a two fold issue. one, some erode it into a dance. two, others fixate on it and try and develop it into a fighting style.

Fights are simple really...just go watch a bunch on Youtube. close distance, clinch, takedown, submit. Say it again five times. (this is my mantra these days!).

I think we have to be careful when we look at things and really think hard about what is going on, what is trying to be taught. It may be warranted that uke jump through the air at times seemingly out of context. Remember one of the things aikido is teaching is ma 'ai. If uke is too slow he may need to catch up, maybe that is what is being worked on...I don't know?


I think that there are really two main catagories of fights.

1. Those that are not intent on death

2. Those that are intent on death.

For #1. While I gave Don a hard time awhile ago about going to ground, I think that he and Kevin are probably right. As Kevin noted above, "close distance, clinch, takedown, submit". At a guess, yeah, probably, most fights not intent on death but are semi-serious to serious end up at some point on the ground.

An exception to this fact is the fights that aren't really serious where two people push and shove and slap and maybe a punch or two is thrown but nothing really occurs. I actually think this kind of thing occurs more often than the more serious fights but it's something that would be extremely hard to prove.

Another exception to this is when two women fight. For some reason, I have yet to see a fight between women where it did *not* end up on the ground.

A point in favor would be children fighting. Quite a lot, kids end up rolling around on the ground when fighting. Although, again, this is semi-serious fights where injuries are rarely severe. Most end up with bruises and scrapes.


#2. And this is all my opinion. I think that fights ending up on the ground in this category are rare. I think that only one person ends up on the ground and typically that person is the loser. So, in my view, it isn't close distance, clinch, takedown, submit but rather close distance, one person goes down, death.

To tie this into Aikido, I think Kevin is right. It won't look like Aikido as practiced in the dojo. The aikido part is to neutralize the attacker's force to take away the means of attack. What is practiced in the dojo are techniques. Techniques are *not* Aikido. They are the building blocks for understanding the principle that is Aikido. IMO, anyway.


Mark

Min Kang 01-04-2007 09:39 AM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
I might suggest breaking down fights into two other categories and see if Aikido makes sense:

1. fights where a solid strike connects; and
2. others.

I used to know a former military police officer stationed overseas and he used to get in a lot of scrapes even when he was off duty :) and he told me that most fights end when the first solid strike is taken. I think Aikido makes sense in this scenario - the atemi implied in all Aikido techniques - however expressed - ends the fight if fully realized. In an Aikido setting, uke reacts to nage, nage takes balance and pins.

In "real life" setting, nage puts hand in uke's face, uke doesn't react or block or evade, nage puts hand through uke's face, fight over. Or, uke blocks, evades, counters, nage, continually moving, puts hand in uke's face, etc.

Okay, it's very simplistic, but...

Oh, and scenario two? grab a pen, keys, stick and start poking and biting and chewing. :drool:

DH 01-04-2007 09:40 AM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
"Real fights are fights that occur in reality.
I defy anyone to categorize them successfully.
Gand members fight
Soldiers fight
Housewives kill every day with kitchen cutlery.
Kids kill.
Killing really isn't that difficult.
How about the 5th dan Judoka in a bar on Hawaii who grabbed his opponents Hawaiian shirt? It ripped off him. The guy then stabbed the Judoka in the aorta. Dead. Real fight.

Fighting an experienced fighter is actually safer!!! Its also far more diffucult, but its rather artificial.
Who fights experienced fghters? They avoid it unless is it agreed to with rules.

And MMA? It intense but only another version of "real"
I do jujutsu, so I object to their version of "real."
They took away part of my power from the get go in this version of reality. I throw and body slam. They fight on a spring loaded floor ;)
How about they throw on concrete and blody slam. Try a single leg on your knees on asphalt. Lift from a triangle choke attempt ala Jackson and drop the ground-game guy on his head on asphalt?

So much comes from what men "see."
For the smart ones men see what THEY want them to see. -works great for budo and for T.V.

The ground game that most men see today came from a little guy doing judo and having to learn o relax and fight smarter. He created BJJ.
The idea of the original MMA the young crowd see on television was experienced groundgame fighters taking experienced stand-up fighters into the ground game guys advantage. Nothing more than making themfight YOUR fight.
Over time the smart guys learned to "stay standng up" and make the groudn guys have to continually re-engage and thus beat the crap out of the ground game guys.
Then we had the ground and pound-my favorite.
It was why you saw a differecne between BJJ and Vale tudu.

The lesson is to learn to do it all. Stop this Three card monty game of "you do this -I do that."
Fighting is about principes in use ? Well sure.....ok.
I say fighting is a mind game
Then conditioning and training
The only way to learn to fight is to train to fight, then...... to fight.
Thousands of guys are doing it, in gyms all over the world. No one is dying and they are learning a skill set, based on principles that will, in the end make able-bodied men with skills over the heads of most in the Martial arts world.
Women cannot compete equally with men either.
It is not the great equalizer. It simply is what it is.
Internal stength is slowly becoming known in this venue as well. Together the combined skills will make the greatest fighters in the world.
There's no stopping the ever increasing interest.

The greatest equalizer to "principles" is the experienced classical budo-guy now doing MMA. He'll hand you your "principles" back to you... in spades.
Again, just go do it all. Roll and have fun.
Cheers
Dan

Kevin Leavitt 01-04-2007 09:40 AM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
Mark,

You conveyed my intent pretty well. The example was used to demonstrate just what you said, that aikido in a fight would not look like aikido. That is all this meant.

I hope no one took what I said as all fights end up on the ground. All fights can end up on the ground, gravity pretty much assures us of that!

Back to my comments on close distance, clinch, takedown submit.

This is pretty much the universal fight plan. All fights pretty much follow this pattern for the most part. The issue is we all end up with a fixation of what this means to us and our imaginations.

Let me explain what I meant further.

Close distance. In order for a fight to occur distance must be closed. Distance is defined by a number of things. Weapons, perception of weapons, no weapons, desire of the fighters, emotions etc. However in an engagement of any type, the fighters must close distance and physically connect somehow. The fighter that can effectively close the distance and seize the upperhand will usually win the fight, unless something else enters the fight like a buddy or another weapon say like a gun....but lets throw those variable out for now.

we have various scenarios, no weapons, one guy with a weapon, both guys with a weapon. Lets stick to sticks and knifes as guns definitely win the battle since physical contact can be made with little or no martial ability.

Now go watch some fights on you tube, or watch the dog brothers on www.dogbrothers.com. See what happens with the plan. Fighter meet, they close distance and they hit, kick, or punch until one of the fighters is taken out, or overwhelmed. You might win at this range and the fight stops...most certainly! Common sense would dictate why go further. If not, you continue to try and overwhelm your opponent, if that does not work you must proceed to the clinch in an attempt to improve your position or disengage.

Disengagement has it's own issues as you can take some serious hits trying to back out of the situation. You might lose the upper hand. Fear and emotions, and the fact that the fighters are tired will typically drive them to the clinch.

THE CLINCH:

Again, watch the videos, people naturally clinch. Some simply know how to do it better. Those that practice it and learn it, will typically gain dominance. Yes you can clinch with knives. What choice do you really have anyway?? Might as well learn how to do it correctly. Separating from the clinch can be very dangerous if you simply try and push away, therefore you should develop skills....hence the takedown.

THE TAKEDOWN:

This is where we start having issues in our minds. When you hear takedown it means different things to different people. BJJ guys in sport may mean ride him to the ground. However, takedown simply means you break his balance and put him in a position that is off balance and inferior to your own. You could go from clinch to the back in classic iriminage. You could do a kotegaeshi, you could do o'sotogari or any number of hip throws or what not. This is no different than any aikido you study, just a different place to start.

THE SUBMISSION:

Again, take your pick of submissions. where ever you are if you are standing do a standing submission, if you are on the ground do a ground submission. It is all situational dependent.


A lot of what we talk about is scenario driven. I train for BJJ matches different than I train for Building Clearing. For example, if I am in a five minute match and I am mounted I may take my time depending on my points to escape. Whereas if I am mounted in combat, I may try like hell to get out from under the guy as fast as possible, not concerned about anything else.

If I have the Rear Mount in a match, I may try for a RNC, in combat I may simply hold him there for my buddy to butt stroke.

The point is, not what you do, it is what you train to do...in both examples the skill sets are the same, the applications much different based on the situation.

So yes, I believe basic fighting strategies all follow the same basic continium. Close Distance, Clinch, Takedown, Submit. Thousands of hours of training, and hundreds of videos I have watched have never proven otherwise.

The problem many of us have when looking from an aikido context is we want to apply what we learn at the same timing, distance, and ma'ai as we learn in the dojo. I could demonstrate to you that closing the distance for the clinch is no different than shomenuchi ikkyo, or munetsuki ikkyo, you simply aren't extending quite as much and things get much smaller and quicker.

Clinching properly is not much different than say some of the dynamics of kaitenage or iriminage...but again it is closer, and the affects are slightly different.

The point is, I believe that we must all be very careful about what is is we are training to do. If you are trainng for UFC you train a certain way, if you are trainng to learn principles of aikido you train a certain way, if you are a police officer doing DT you train a certain way, if you are training for the street or combat you train a certain way.

There is a common thread in all of them at the core though, and when you enter the realm of non-compliance, a new dynamic is in play and there are only so many ways to defeat that game. Close Distance, Clinch, Takedown, Submit.

Kevin Leavitt 01-04-2007 09:48 AM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
Good points Dan. I agree.

We cannot account for or train for every scenario. You may be the best fighter in the world and die. It just simply be your day. Which is why I think it is more important with Budo to prepare yourself to live rather than worrying about all this dying stuff.

Anyway,

There are certain things we can do to increase the odds in our favor in some real fights, however you imagine or define them. This is why we isolate the methodolgy I outline of CD, C, TD, S.

We can learn skills that are simple, that are easy to learn, that go quickly into muscle memory. It is why we can make a decent fighter in less than a year...not decades.

You also bring up good points on conditioning, both mentally and physically, these things must not be discounted either. I think we do this alot as an excuse. Somehow we all want to believe that we can learn some internal things than will down play the physcial side. Well guess what...in order to have the alignment and posture to do the internal stuff you have to have developed some physical attributes!

mriehle 01-04-2007 09:51 AM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
A long time ago, one of my Aikido teachers said to me, "No technique goes as planned".

Would this be the kind of thing you guys are getting at?

FWIW, IME using Aikido a few times against people who were at least semi-serious about beating me into submission (at least) it did, indeed, look like Aikido. Okay, yes, I wasn't actually watching because I was busy dealing at the time, but when I reviewed the events in my mind later I was confident that someone watching would have recognized it as Aikido.

But it wasn't pretty Aikido. It was sloppy and improvised. No pretty kokyu nage throws (though, there were kokyu nage throws, just not pretty ones). The one sankyo was decidedly less friendly than I'm used to in the dojo (and needed to be!).

Now, okay, these kids had no training to speak of, but they were used to fighting for high stakes. People who lost fights in their neighborhoods sometimes died. So when they decided it was time to prove they could "beat up the black belt" they weren't kidding (actually, sometimes they were and then it was just cheap entertainment; it's amazing how well some of these techniques work against someone who knows how to attack, does so sincerely, but on some level is actually motivated to have you throw them). They meant to "win", which meant pinning me to the mat and beating on my face. Not your typical compliant uke scenario. I don't believe any of them actually meant to kill or injure me, but in the situation I wouldn't have assumed that.

So, it definitely looked like Aikido, but it wasn't pretty.

I rather think most confrontations would either be like that or the Aikidoist would get beat up.

Kevin Leavitt 01-04-2007 09:53 AM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
Min,

What gets interesting is when you make the best, most solid punch in the world, and the guys eyes get big and he pretty much ignore it and you just pissed him off even more! I have had this happen a number of times with my soldiers. also hurts like hell on your now broken hand.

I tend to prefer hitting people with other objects if I can. From there, palms elbows etc. Hits for me really serve to disrupt the tempo so I can either escape or move to a more dominate, tactical position. For me, the atemi, or intent of atemi is no different in a real fight than it is in aikido the dynamic is exactly the same. It is when you get into grappling range that things get interesting and you cannot escape back out.

Cady Goldfield 01-04-2007 09:58 AM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:
It is not the great equalizer. It simply is what it is.

Maybe not, but it does confer a skill set that can buy an edge, especially when combined with strategic and tactical intelligence the opponent/enemy lacks.

If you're talking about similar skill set vs. similar skill set between two people of grossly different size and weight, that's one thing. In a "game" fight with rules, I'd put my cash on the larger, stronger one. But outside the rarified environment, skills, smarts, bio-psychology, circumstance and even luck play a big part in who "wins," and size and strength aren't always part of a winning hand. In those circumstances, these skills, though not "equalizers" in the sense of gaining size and strength, do give the person with the lesser physical strength a weapon of huge value.

Kevin Leavitt 01-04-2007 10:01 AM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
Yea sure Michael...nothing ever goes as planned.

I like the quote you use in the Army..."No plan ever survives the first hour of battle."

This thread is not really going in the direction I want to go in as these threads always get sticky and emotional and I or someone else usually says something that we later regret.

But, let me pose this:

If your main concern was learning how to be effective for real in various scenarios on the street, why on earth would you waste your time studying aikido when there are more efficient methodologies for training these things?

I think that we study aikido for lots of reasons, I do, and okay we can go down the path about all the mind development, and how that has third order effects on whether we can avoid a fight, or we can get into all they other things we always talk about...

but my question is more direct in nature to actual physical violence. If that is our concern, wouldn't you want to train in someway that best taught you to win?

hkronin 01-04-2007 10:29 AM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
Fights come in all shapes and sizes, "real fights" can sometimes have rules themselves, just ask a police officer. So many arguments are started because people think that a "fight" has a particular definition. Here are some examples of "fights" that would have completely different characteristics.

1) A drunken uncle trying to knock you out at a holiday party
2) A police officer trying to subdue an unarmed teenage shoplifter
3) A woman being mugged by two larger men while walking home from work
4) Someone picks a fight with you during your hockey game
5) You're a bouncer trying to "escort" someone out of the bar
6) The cashier at a mini mart being robbed at gun point
7) A soldier with an M16 fighting insurgents in Iraq

In some of the above situations, you're goal is simply to survive. In some others, you have a more specific goal, and simply running away would not be an option. In some of these situations, you also have rules; IE the police officer would not be allowed to strike the opponent in the eyes, or break a limb, or kill his opponent. There are endless scenarios we could all think of that require different skills and abilities. The nice thing about Aikido, is that the principles learned can be applied in all scenarios; but we should be careful to define what a "real fight" is, or what style is effective or not from our own experiences. Everyone has their reasons for training, and even though some of us may train in the same art, we are not all training for the same reasons, or with the same goals.

Min Kang 01-04-2007 10:47 AM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
Quote:

Kevin Leavitt wrote:
Min,

What gets interesting is when you make the best, most solid punch in the world, and the guys eyes get big and he pretty much ignore it and you just pissed him off even more! I have had this happen a number of times with my soldiers. also hurts like hell on your now broken hand.

I tend to prefer hitting people with other objects if I can. From there, palms elbows etc. Hits for me really serve to disrupt the tempo so I can either escape or move to a more dominate, tactical position. For me, the atemi, or intent of atemi is no different in a real fight than it is in aikido the dynamic is exactly the same. It is when you get into grappling range that things get interesting and you cannot escape back out.

Ah, but that's precisely my point, Kevin. Maybe I didn't articulate it very well but... landing a solid strike to me means a strike sufficient to effect the other: anything from a momentary disruption of their attack rhythm to incapacity.

So, if you can't do that, you end up, as you said, in a clinch or on the ground - unpleasant business, that. Not very gentlemanly at all, rolling around in the dirt - much prefer sharp pointy things in that context.

mriehle 01-04-2007 10:48 AM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
Quote:

Kevin Leavitt wrote:
If your main concern was learning how to be effective for real in various scenarios on the street, why on earth would you waste your time studying aikido when there are more efficient methodologies for training these things?

Well, for me, Aikido has actually proven effective. I personally know other people who've also found it actually effective. Having said that, I would not try to use Aikido in a competition.

Because "effective Aikido" is as much about the mind set as it is about techniques and I, at least, lose that mind set immediately where competition is involved. As soon as I let go of competition and just get on with what needs to be done things go much better.

Quote:

Kevin Leavitt wrote:
I think that we study aikido for lots of reasons, I do, and okay we can go down the path about all the mind development, and how that has third order effects on whether we can avoid a fight, or we can get into all they other things we always talk about...

I think you may underestimate the value of the mind development. The biggest issue I've seen with my students is the number of them that are simply unwilling to defend themselves. It isn't that they don't want to, it's that they freeze or panic in the face of even the gentlest of "attacks". Imagine what happens when someone really attacks them, then.

The mental training, learning to act in such a situation may actually be the most important benefit in any martial arts training.

Quote:

Kevin Leavitt wrote:
but my question is more direct in nature to actual physical violence. If that is our concern, wouldn't you want to train in someway that best taught you to win?

I don't want to win, I want to survive. I have no need to dominate, I just want to resolve the situation in a way which leaves me safe, my attacker safe and I prefer it if I've given an attacker no particular reason for retaliation. Or his friends.

Growing up I lived in some tough neighborhoods. Fighting was part of daily life. Here's how it usually went:
  • Kid A would irritate me in some way or would pick a fight.
  • I'd beat Kid A bloody. Now I'm feeling pretty good about myself.
  • Kid A would tell his big brother, Kid B and six other friends.
  • Kid B and friends would look at Kid A and see the evidence of the damage done, deciding that retaliation was in order.
  • Kid B and friends would find me and beat me bloody. If Kid B wasn't big enough to do it by himself, they'd gang up on me.
  • Kid B and friends would now be looking for excuses to beat me up and would encourage all other bullies at the school to consider me a target.

In every situation where Aikido has been a factor, the person attacking me would get up feeling silly and that was the end of it. I remember one kid, a big guy with a little bit of MA training who decided to "test" me seriously. He tried to take me to the mat and I didn't go (he did, though). He got up and complained to his friends who responded, "Well, it was stupid to attack him, wasn't it?" or something to that effect. I didn't actually hurt him, so he got no sympathy from his friends.

But, of course, most confrontations I've been in since I started training have never gotten physical. I love the fact that they pretty much end with the other person walking away feeling like it would be a waste of time to fight. Especially when they have no knowledge of my training.

Honestly, I doubt I'd have had many physical encounters if I hadn't been teaching the kids who wanted to attack me all the time.

And that's reality for most of us. I notice you train military people. That's a whole other ball o' wax. But, even there, I'd bet the mind set, the willingness to "fight" is at least as important - and often more so - as any techniques learned.

Avery Jenkins 01-04-2007 10:51 AM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
Quote:

Kevin Leavitt wrote:
but my question is more direct in nature to actual physical violence. If that is our concern, wouldn't you want to train in someway that best taught you to win?

Which is why I train in aikido, because as you aptly point out, aikido teaches principles, not technique. Let me make an analogy...

In my practice, I do a lot of acupuncture. You can basically approach acupuncture two ways: You can get a cookbook, and when a patient comes in and you diagnose disorder X, you look up disorder X in the cookbook and stick the needles in where it tells you. That's technique. That'll give you joy about 75% of the time.

Or, you can go beyond simply diagnosing disorder X, and try to understand where/how things have gone awry. You apply the principles of traditional Chinese medicine to understand what's happening to that patient, and develop your treatment plan based on those principles. That'll get you a better percentage, maybe 85-90% (nobody's 100%, and if they say so, they lie).

Yeah, the principles approach takes more study, more thought, more experience. But it gives you that extra 10-15%. And the guys who truly *master* the principles of TCM, like Osensei, they are awe -inspiring in what they can do.

Same with MAs. BJJ could give me that 75% quick, and given the narrow odds that I'm going to actually end up H2H with someone ugly, that would be enough in most cases. But if I know the principles as well, I'm even further ahead.

I can see where you're coming from, Kevin -- you have to ramp up your students as fast as possible, with limited attention because of the many other skills that a soldier must master and maintain. So a focus on technique, with what principles you can manage to embed in your teaching is the best way to go.

I've got a lifetime (ok, half a lifetime) to master this stuff. So for the first 15 years, I keep my mouth shut and stay away from biker bars...

Avery

Min Kang 01-04-2007 11:02 AM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
Quote:

Kevin Leavitt wrote:
If your main concern was learning how to be effective for real in various scenarios on the street, why on earth would you waste your time studying aikido when there are more efficient methodologies for training these things?...

but my question is more direct in nature to actual physical violence. If that is our concern, wouldn't you want to train in someway that best taught you to win?

I agree with you Kevin. Insofar as If your ONLY reason for training was for "real fights" then no, while Aikido may not be a WASTE of your time, there are waaay better and faster ways to achieve your stated goal.

On the otherhand, as we all recognize, Aikido offers something that is harder to glean from other MA's.

At my current level of training, I suffer no delusions: There are many people that I can dominate "on the mat" that could easily kick my ass "on the street." (shhhh, don't tell them :D )

I'm okay with that.

DonMagee 01-04-2007 11:13 AM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:
"
I do jujutsu, so I object to their version of "real."
They took away part of my power from the get go in this version of reality. I throw and body slam. They fight on a spring loaded floor ;)
How about they throw on concrete and blody slam. Try a single leg on your knees on asphalt. Lift from a triangle choke attempt ala Jackson and drop the ground-game guy on his head on asphalt?

I'm too sick to really put my thoughts together. But I thought I'd take this moment to point out some quick facts.

1) The ring is a metal box with wood planks and 1/4 inch foam padding. It is not spring loaded, and as I found out, hurts to land on.
2) Single legs can be done safely on concrete. You dont have to slam your leg into the ground. I however am not a fan of single leg or double leg takedowns. I'm a judo guy at heart for throws.
3) If a guy can lift you up in a triangle, its your own fault for letting him. Hook a leg, transition, sit up and grab his skull, break his posture, eye gouge, etc. There is no excuse. He has a fully exposed head and no hands to defend with.

MM 01-04-2007 11:55 AM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:
"Real fights are fights that occur in reality.
I defy anyone to categorize them successfully.

Cheers
Dan

Just slightly off topic here. I just read something by Tomiki. He wasn't talking about fights, but his catagories could be used. He was talking about martial arts and violence and used these three catagories:

1. Control by killing.
2. Control by wounding.
3. Rejecting killing and wounding, moreover, simply controlling violence.

Mark

Kevin Leavitt 01-04-2007 12:13 PM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
Great post guys.

Michael: It is not that aikido is NOT effective or useful, I never meant to imply that, only that if your sole focus in concentration was fighting skill, there are better ways to spend your time, hence this is why I kinda hate to get into these discussions because it ends up being a perspective thing, kinda oil and water.

Avery: I completely agree with you too a point. I think you have articulated well why to study aikido, I have no issues and frankly study for the same reasons. I am simply dragging it down to the core level of fighting and isolating the thing that alot of people seem to fixate on and then proceed to get confused about why they are studying.

Avery wrote:

Quote:

Same with MAs. BJJ could give me that 75% quick, and given the narrow odds that I'm going to actually end up H2H with someone ugly, that would be enough in most cases. But if I know the principles as well, I'm even further ahead.
You MIGHT be further ahead, you MIGHT not. That is sort of my point, once you get down into territory of shudothug.

Avery wrote:

Quote:

I've got a lifetime (ok, half a lifetime) to master this stuff. So for the first 15 years, I keep my mouth shut and stay away from biker bars
You MIGHT have a lifetime....actually you may have the rest of your life. Reminds me of one of our airborne riddles, "how long do you have to pull your reserve...answer: the rest of your life."

Let me pose this:

IF you could invest say a small amount of your martial career learning to handle yourself somewhat proficiently in an altercation... (assuming that this is an important thing to you)....then why would you NOT establish this proficiency upfront and THEN move on to better understand the principles? Or concurrently?

To continue on the Doctor analogy: Before Surgeons do open heart surgery they have to master some degree of proficiency at some very basic skills, many which are NOT sexy.

Same with Lawyers (right Min), if you are going to be a court room lawyer, you probably should master some public speaking skills and debate skills prior to actually going in the court room.

Those skills may not be important if you are going into research or patent law..it depends I think on your focus.

I am NOT advocating abandoning the practice of principle oriented arts as being useless or unimportant, actually I do as well as I do BECAUSE of them. I am simply posing some thoughts on the subject about looking at things slightly different, some of which may be outside of your paradigm or comfort zone...that is all.

I think it depends on your focus and goals. I am not one to judge or criticize why anyone does what they do as there are many ways.

Good discussion!

Kevin Leavitt 01-04-2007 12:19 PM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
Min wrote:

Quote:

agree with you Kevin. Insofar as If your ONLY reason for training was for "real fights" then no, while Aikido may not be a WASTE of your time, there are waaay better and faster ways to achieve your stated goal.

On the otherhand, as we all recognize, Aikido offers something that is harder to glean from other MA's.

At my current level of training, I suffer no delusions: There are many people that I can dominate "on the mat" that could easily kick my ass "on the street." (shhhh, don't tell them )

I'm okay with that.
As you know, I am cool with that. (As if it really matters if I am or not right :)) You hit the nail on the head which is why I presented the question anyway. It is a direct way to get people back on track as to what we need to focus on.

All I can tell you is it was a humiliating experience the day I had to fight a couple of guys in our MA program that had very little experience and I could not handle them adequately with my YEARS of training...then again, it is ME and my training so should not be a real suprise.

It made me stop and think hard about how I spent my time and reassess things from a different angle.

Again, not right or wrong, as it is personal to my personal practice and mastery.

Kevin Leavitt 01-04-2007 12:32 PM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
Response to Dan and Don's post above:

Yea concrete, glass, clothing and all that changes things for sure.

I think BJJ guys sometimes get the reputation that they deserve as many of them have tunnel vision as well about fights. Just like Aikido guys too. Infact it is usually the Noobs that screw up things for everyone!

Anyway, I agree with both of you.

What I am proposing is not learning a great deal about the technical game of BJJ, but very basic, basic skills. Yes, many of them are covered in BJJ 101, but we don't need to learn the triangle choke, or 100 guard passes, omaplata or that stuff, simple things really.

I am sure both you guys have run into the situation where you are discussing fighting paradiqms with the BJJ guy and he ask from an aiki paradigm how would you fight.

I usually say, I wouldn't... I'd establish Ma'ai, shutdown his intial approach and I'd run for the door or find a big stick if I could.

"How is THAT Aikido"

...Well it is...but it is also common sense"!

Then they say..."okay, how about if he tackles you and you are on the ground and he has you mounted". I then say, I'd escape the mount and establish dominance again.

"ah, you'd do BJJ"!

Well Duh!! if you want to label things!""

It just ain't worth going to this stylistic argument!

Kevin Leavitt 01-04-2007 12:41 PM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
Man Ain't I the thread warrior today!


Mark Murray Wrote:

Quote:

Just slightly off topic here. I just read something by Tomiki. He wasn't talking about fights, but his catagories could be used. He was talking about martial arts and violence and used these three catagories:

1. Control by killing.
2. Control by wounding.
3. Rejecting killing and wounding, moreover, simply controlling violence.
Geesh, I know it sounds like I am aikido bashing here...but I really, really hope it isn't taken that way.....

To be quite honest, I felt like I can better control my ability to span the gap from killing and wounding from my BJJ skill set, than I have learned in aikido.

Which is interesting as we spend more time talking about it and directly practicing it (so it seems) in aikido.

Ellis Amdur's post about two weeks ago really got me thinking about this as I always kinda felt that aikido was somehow MORE ethical and compassionate in it's approach to things from a technical standpoint.

I have no issue with it on a philosophical or principle standpoint as I think aikido has a very unique methodology of training which refines and cultivates the mind. I also think aikido is a wonderful methodology to teach posture, breathing, propriception, the whole ma'ai thing is wonderful too! I cannot describe in words what Aikido brings to the table as it has really defined me as who I am today in many ways.

MM 01-04-2007 12:54 PM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
Quote:

Kevin Leavitt wrote:
Man Ain't I the thread warrior today!


Geesh, I know it sounds like I am aikido bashing here...but I really, really hope it isn't taken that way.....

Nah, didn't take anything as aikido bashing. Just good reading. :)

I just posted those three items as a variation on how to "define" fighting. If one can "define" it at all.

Mark

Kevin Leavitt 01-04-2007 01:04 PM

Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?
 
Thanks Mark, I agree you get into a terrible bind when you attempt to define fights as there are soooo, sooo many variables and we all have to agree on what aspects we are going to evaluate and isolate so we can measure and critique appropriately.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:13 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.