Michael Fooks wrote:
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.