It is for the intent of the betterment of those seeking information in terms of Aikido: knowing where wazas come from (history) is helpful. It is my understanding BJJ tools noted are parented from Judo nawaza, e.g. chokes, arm bars, "Kumura." I would think as MMA or BJJ it is good to know your history, right? Knowing history can answer allot of questions, providing a greater understanding appreciation, mechanics, and stuff leading to better performance.
Sure, but you have to make sure you have the Etiology and the context/perspective correct too.
For example, saying BJJ came from Judo can be misleading really. That is, if you compare BJJ to what is commonly practiced as Judo today.
One might argue that BJJ and Judo were derived from the same source, that is, Kano Jiu Jitsu, later known as judo. Kano Jiu Jitsu/Judo apparently from my readings of history and interviews was much different than what is practiced today in Judo.
The fact is, that Both BJJ and Judo were derived from Koryu Jiu Jitsu systems that were rooted in battlefield tactics. There are many ranges of combat and the grappling range is but one.
However that said, I am not sure I completely understand what your point is about bring this up though. You might need to clarify this so I understand. It really doesn't answer what you quoted from me which is "Why is it that you don't see Ikkyo?"
I'll assume it deal with the importance of understanding history and original context of the meaning of why we do certain things.
Omaplata, Kumura, Triangle Choke (also known as Sankaku (sic), are nothing new...they can be found in all ancient text of Jiu Jitsu. they work in a grappling range of fighting, and they are important to understand and know if you are concerned about fighting period.
I'll again refer to my Post #3 for reasons concerning ikkyo. It has a context, yes and application. It does not fit the bill for MMA application, so yes, I agree with your statement. "right tool for right job."
I agree, different animal when it come to cage fighting. Cage fighting is a contest, it is not interchangeable with the street. Though like other contest martial arts it is applicable to street situations. Aikido's parent, jujitsu was not created or designed for a contest. I think this is a core concept to understanding Aikido, at least it was for me. Therefore it may be helpful to others.
Well I don't necessarily agree with this statement. "interchangeable to the street". I don't really know what interchangeable means in this context, but applicability to the street YES it does. There is much in MMA that transfers directly to the street. We just need to understand, like in any martial practice what its limitations are.
Do you really think that guys like Tito Ortiz, Bas Rutten, Randy Couture can't handle themselves on the street? (Minus getting trampled by a hear of wild circus ponies...which is possible).
I am betting they would fair as well as the next guy or better given even odds and same access and equal knowledge and OODA loop.
OODA is actually a prime example of why MMA type training is so applicable. These guys practice it daily and have an intimate understanding of the importance of it and have the experience on how to stay ahead of it. This alone is probably the most important aspect outside of conditioning in a fight. Techniques and skills, IMO take a back seat to these two things always..that is, OODA and Conditioning.
Do some reading on John Boyd and dog fighitng with planes and it begins to make sense.
I and many others have spent a great deal of time studying the evolution of the UFC from #1 to present. We have looked at great detail why the early fights were won and the evolution of why the art changed and has evolved and will continue to evolve. Why did Jiu Jitsu reign so unanimously in the early days, yet today, you can beat the Jiu Jitsu strategy with ground in pound and be a intermediate skilled BJJer? It has to do with an understanding of how to fight and conditioning.
What Sylvia vs Munson fight in UFC #65 I think, Sylvia beat Munson a superior fighter because he learned how to defeat his game...he was able to stay ahead of the OODA process and developed a strategy which caused Munson to expend 3 units of energy for every 1 unit of his.
A digression, but it shows the overall importance of Timing, positioning, strategy, and conditioning. Heck even the Book of Five Rings covers this when Musashi met his opponent on the beach with the sun behind his back! What was more important? Ikkyo or OODA in this situation?
Good point, Kevin. And that parallels with understanding where Aikido techniques are modified form feudal combat techniques. For me that is what gave me those Gestalt type moments. I think it is hard to learn or limiting when its history isn't also taught with it.
I don't disagree that history is important. However, it has it's limits as to what it can provide us in ways of experiences. Heck anyone can read history and become an expert on the keyboard if they read enough, visualize, and use their imaginations.
To me, the intellectual community in Martial Arts is kinda like a Economics Professor with Tenure that can talk all day long about the theories of what made Bill Gates successful and how the economy works after the fact, yet he himself has never actually gone out and done that.
Sure there is a place for that, but thank god we have guys like Bill Gates that said to hell with Academia and simply went out and rolled up his shirt sleeves and actually played with crap and learned how to do something with it!
MA IMO works the same way. We have alot of folks that read about it, talk about it, and pursue it as an intellectual exercise and I think the historical context is relied upon way too heavily as a frame of reference..but I get it, if that is all one has to fall back on for experience, it is what you have.
Skunk works is important.
As far as Aikido Techniques being modified from feudal techniques...Not sure I agree with that either.
Aikido is taught from a philosophical and principle contextual base. O'Sensei used the elements out Jiu Jitsu and specifically DRAJJ to teach some very specific concepts IMO.
If taught properly, there is no techniques to modify whatsoever. They would be the same if done correctly.
IMO, the problem is that alot of folks simply have a sophomoric understanding of what Aikido is. That is...A fighting system that is based on a philosophical and ethical set of beliefs...AKA DOGMA or Fundamentalism.
That leads, IMO, to the paradigm that techniques were modified in order to allow us to be more ethical, less ballistic, or resolve conflict what may be a more "moral" way.
I think this is complete and utter delusional fantasy, garbage, and could possibly get someone hurt or killed with this way of thinking.
No, I think done properly and efficiently all "good" jiu jitsu is the same in the end and there is no need to modify any technique at all when you understand the basic fundamental principles.
We can debate about Pedagogy all day long. That is, what is the best way to practice to get there, but that is a different discussion than this one.
I think Dan Harden, Mike Sigman, and especially Mark Murray are very good at discussing this subject concerning Aiki and Aikido.
Thanks Buck for the dialogue.