I'll post the full quote for reference. It's from here:
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.