AikiWeb Aikido Forums

AikiWeb Aikido Forums (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/index.php)
-   General (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Aikido vs.... (http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8521)

Adam Alexander 07-14-2005 04:04 PM

Aikido vs....
 
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 06:03 PM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
Quote:

Jean de Rochefort wrote:
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?

Quote:

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 11:36 AM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
Quote:

Joep Schuurkes wrote:
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 11:49 AM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
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 12:38 PM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
Quote:

Ron Tisdale wrote:
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 01:18 PM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
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 06:43 PM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
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 09:39 PM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
Quote:

Jean de Rochefort wrote:
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 10:47 PM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
Quote:

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 12:46 PM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
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 12:58 AM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
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 01:00 AM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
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 11:56 AM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
Joep, no offense. I just figured you didn't know what you were talking about;)

Aristeia 07-19-2005 02:45 PM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
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
Quote:

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 10:13 AM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
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 11:37 AM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
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."



Quote:

Michael Fooks wrote:
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 09:44 PM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
Hey Jean, sorry I've only just come across this post so haven't responded sooner.
Quote:

Jean de Rochefort wrote:
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.

Quote:




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.
Quote:


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)
Quote:

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?
Quote:

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 10:57 PM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
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 12:09 PM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
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 12:47 PM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
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 01:42 PM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
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 02:08 PM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
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 04:32 PM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
Quote:

Jean de Rochefort wrote:
Would you agree that a MA is a group of techniques that demonstrate principles.

yes, very much so.
Quote:

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.
Quote:

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 05:28 PM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
Quote:

Michael Fooks wrote:
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 05:28 PM

Re: Aikido vs....
 
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.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:13 PM.

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