Thread: Aikido vs....
View Single Post
Old 08-01-2005, 06:39 PM   #29
Location: Auckland
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 971
New Zealand
Re: Aikido vs....

Jean de Rochefort wrote:
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.

"When your only tool is a hammer every problem starts to look like a nail"
  Reply With Quote