That's just an ignorant post.
"Can't fight well." Since when was budo training about producing "fighters"?
Since the beginning
Anyone with a brain can see that there are better methods if you want to kick other people's asses. The Japanese and Chinese worked out that training just for ass kicking is juvenile years ago. "budo" doesn't even mean "martial art"!
That much is evident in the way many practice.
Been noticing quite a bit of dissension towards KI Aikido on this forum. Why is that?
1. Is it because many preceive it as ineffective or is it just
2. Can't KI Aikido be street effective?
3..Should I go to another style?
Dan Harden wrote:
It isn't rocket science Ed.
Go invite some average people in (who are not trained fighters) to attack your teacher. Then invite in some decent fighters and ask them them to tune your teacher. Then answer your own question and stay or leave.
In case you don't already know this, most martial artists suck. They can neither fight well, or handle physical stresses well.
What measure is there for effective? He asked about street effective. I suggested he test both; trained and untrained.
If asked directly there was a simple way to find out.
What does measuring the effectiveness of a martial artist have to do with disrespecting them? They either are, or they are not.
If they do not do their martial arts as martial arts, but rather for fun, than fine.
Why ask a question about effectiveness then?
I think too many people want credit for it all, and they have not put in the time or the testing and suffering to get it...but they want to claim equal footing for something clearly not earned. That is the king of disrespect.
I have many friends in budo who could care less about fighting or fighting ability (maybe even the majority). There is nothing wrong with that. I continually argue that we should not judge people in budo who are having fun...until and unless they claim ( or worse, teach) something they simply cannot do or know.