Feelings on "open mat" policy

Marc Abrams wrote: As Kevin pointed out, the testing of skill sets come with explicit and implicit rules within set paradigms. Step outside of that and one does what is necessary to sustain one's own life. As George pointed out, it gets very ugly at that point in time. Little is ever "proven" by such acts.

That's a good point. If the challenge is to see if aikido "works" (as opposed to seeing if the teacher is a good fighter), then presumably the teacher would have to limit his/her response to aikido techniques. What are those, exactly?

For example, if the teacher goes down, is the challenge ended (aikido has no ground techniques)? Then again, some people claim that BJJ is "aikido on the ground," so could the teacher switch to BJJ and still be defending aikido? Some people feel that Kenji Ushiro Sensei is doing aikido--could the teacher switch to Bujutsu Karate and still be defending aikido? If the teacher politely declines the challenge, thus restoring harmony to the situation, has the teacher defended aikido?

I guess my question is this: What is a challenger challenging, and what is the defender defending?

Dan Rubin wrote: That's a good point. If the challenge is to see if aikido "works" (as opposed to seeing if the teacher is a good fighter), then presumably the teacher would have to limit his/her response to aikido techniques. What are those, exactly?

Let's see if you can answer you're own question. You seem to be confusing yourself.

For example, if the teacher goes down, is the challenge ended (aikido has no ground techniques)? Then again, some people claim that BJJ is "aikido on the ground," so could the teacher switch to BJJ and still be defending aikido? Some people feel that Kenji Ushiro Sensei is doing aikido--could the teacher switch to Bujutsu Karate and still be defending aikido? If the teacher politely declines the challenge, thus restoring harmony to the situation, has the teacher defended aikido? I guess my question is this: What is a challenger challenging, and what is the defender defending?

Rhetorical Questions....

William Hazen

William Hazen wrote: You seem to be confusing yourself.

A frequent problem for me.

Dan Wrote:

For example, if the teacher goes down, is the challenge ended (aikido has no ground techniques)? Then again, some people claim that BJJ is "aikido on the ground," so could the teacher switch to BJJ and still be defending aikido? Some people feel that Kenji Ushiro Sensei is doing aikido--could the teacher switch to Bujutsu Karate and still be defending aikido? If the teacher politely declines the challenge, thus restoring harmony to the situation, has the teacher defended aikido?

Good points. Personally I don't separate out dynamic movement based on where I am (standing or on the ground) it is all the same for me. (BJJ is aikido on the ground and vice versa).

What might be different is the amount of assumed cooperation, assumed strikes/tactics that we are going to agree to recognize etc. Even then, any two people will not completely be able to synchronize that effort (i.e striking then moving appropriately even though it may be light contact through reduction in force, not positional effectiveness).

The communication process is very, very difficult when you start framing assumptions, parameters, constraints and limitations around the framework.

This though, I think is the most important thing to get right in the dojo environment, setting the proper environmental conditions to correctly train and measure against.

I have never been a a dojo at all that does not get myopic at some point in it's training focus and forget to "keep it real". It is just something that is hard to sustain on a day to day basis.

Some do it better than others...some folks are way, way, way out there away from reality!

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Dan Wrote: Good points. Personally I don't separate out dynamic movement based on where I am (standing or on the ground) it is all the same for me. (BJJ is aikido on the ground and vice versa). What might be different is the amount of assumed cooperation, assumed strikes/tactics that we are going to agree to recognize etc. Even then, any two people will not completely be able to synchronize that effort (i.e striking then moving appropriately even though it may be light contact through reduction in force, not positional effectiveness). The communication process is very, very difficult when you start framing assumptions, parameters, constraints and limitations around the framework. This though, I think is the most important thing to get right in the dojo environment, setting the proper environmental conditions to correctly train and measure against. I have never been a a dojo at all that does not get myopic at some point in it's training focus and forget to "keep it real". It is just something that is hard to sustain on a day to day basis. Some do it better than others...some folks are way, way, way out there away from reality!

Kevin is 100% accurate about ALL dojos having to struggle to not become overly myopic. In order to push our training, we need a lot of implicit trust in our partners. That is why the unknown challenger is simply a more dangerous proposition. This points out the importance of the role of the uke in our training. I utilize a blog on my dojo website to accompany training themes. This was a blog that I wrote on the role of the uke in Aikido training
http://aasbk.com/blog/?page_id=8

Both Nage and Uke have a great deal of responsibility in order to train seriously, without having to engage in competition with one another.

Marc Abrams

Joseph Connolly wrote: That's what a waiver is for.

Not sure how much I would trust a simple wavier in this instance.

Waivers don't excuse or cover irresponsibility or absolve you of running a responsible dojo. Actually, I don't think waivers are really worth a whole lot, but I am not a lawyer.

Walter Martindale wrote: It depends on the wording of the waiver, and it's execution. We had a seminar once on waivers at a coach education weekend. One case-study was about a ski-hill in British Columbia, sued by a guy for some reason, in part IIRC because he wasn't properly warned of the hazards on the ski hill when he got hurt. When the ski hill's reps showed up at the court with the waiver for the day in question, as well as the (witnessed) waivers he'd signed every session he'd been at (almost weekly) for the previous three years or so, the judge threw out the case. I'm not sure if the document is still in print, but you could check out the "Centre for Sport and Law" which used to produce "Waivers and other agreements" a booklet outlining some of the process... http://www.sportlaw.ca/index.php Cheers, W

Thanks for the link! We seldom do waivers here in Malaysia since nobody really sues here like they do in the US. But hey you never know right?

Grant Wagar wrote: Not sure how much I would trust a simple wavier in this instance.

The waivers I have signed are not simple. They usually have a great deal of wording regarding potential of injury and death. I always refer to it as the "if i die paper".

Like I said in the beginning, for me, it would depend on the intention of the person who showed up. I'd hope my coach would be able to differentiate earnest interest and some crackpot.

If a waiver won't protect you against a guy off of the street, it is not going to protect you against a fellow student. I think it is just a red herring.

Marc Abrams wrote: Both Nage and Uke have a great deal of responsibility in order to train seriously, without having to engage in competition with one another. Marc Abrams

Yup.

Again it boils down to intention and the cultivation of Martial Awareness...

Tonight I am visiting another Aikido Dojo here in Ventura and Ideally we will both step off the mat being better people for the experiance.

WIlliam Hazen

Marc Abrams wrote: I will only "answer" challenges (either in the dojo that I run or I train in) if I know the person and have worked with them. A level of mutual respect and a believe that the person can safely take what is going to be dished out (on both sides) are minimum requirements.

Ha. I don't even let people on the mat (or get on theirs) if I don't have that relationship of mutual respect and more than that, a mutual understanding of the rules of engagement.

Marc Abrams wrote: Both Nage and Uke have a great deal of responsibility in order to train seriously, without having to engage in competition with one another.

This is why, because, IMO, to really get somewhere in our training, competition is necessary. Competition in the cooperative sense.. sometime now being called coopetition, which is both silly and an understandable attempt to elucidate the difference.

With respect to waivers, IANAL, but they do not prevent anyone from suing, but they can provide evidence that the signer was made aware of the risks and entered into an agreement to 'not sue'. That CAN cause a case to be dismissed eventually (and I've heard of such cases), but a waiver, no matter what it says, will not protect someone who is negligent or abusive in their actions.

The reality is that FEAR of lawsuits has far more effect on most people than actual, real lawsuits.

I am in my third week of running an "Open Mat" in our dojo right now on Saturday mornings. I was given permission to teach basic Ne Waza (AKA was "ground fighting or BJJ).

The stuff I am teaching is right out of the Army Combatives manual and level I course. (basic ne waza drills)

The only difference is the time I have to teach it (Army 8 hours a day for 5 days vice dojo 1 hour a week for ???? months).

I also do a few minutes of Randori each class as it is important.

The other difference is that I am working with Aikidoka so I tend to take micro pauses and relate what we are doing back to aikido principles and structure such as posture, breathing, irimi, etc...sense most have an understanding or have come to the dojo to understand these things.

I hope that we will be able to turn up the heat on the aliveness and mat randori in the future, but it will take a while for a number of reasons.

We have the mutual respect thing covered as I am working with aikidoka from my dojo and we have the established.

What we don't have is an understanding of the paradigm in which we are training.

We have different levels of understanding of skill and pressure and control.

We have a different understanding of what the objectives are when you are training in ne waza.

So, if I were to say "on your knees, slap hands and ROLL!" someone would get hurt very seriously at this point.

AND this is in a dojo with alot of mutual respect. It will take a while to develop enough understanding and skill in a few committed students to begin to train that way.

It is scary when there is one of you and a bunch of them and you are having to supervise all of them to make sure someone isn't getting over zealous.

Once you become an instructor you begin to really understand responsibility, liability and what you have to do to LEAD and guide a dojo or a class through training and NOT GET ANYONE HURT!

Open mat IMO does not mean literally "OPEN for anything!".

Kevin Leavitt wrote: It is scary when there is one of you and a bunch of them and you are having to supervise all of them to make sure someone isn't getting over zealous. Once you become an instructor you begin to really understand responsibility, liability and what you have to do to LEAD and guide a dojo or a class through training and NOT GET ANYONE HURT! Open mat IMO does not mean literally "OPEN for anything!".

I think this gets away from what the original poster was discussing as open mat, but I have to agree with you.

Being responsible for everyone on your mats is a pretty heavy and pretty scary. Even though I've taught in various forms and even some situations which are much more 'dangerous' (scuba), I learn more every day how important it is to have a systematic way to help people drill the necessary skills to progress safely.

IMO, an open mat is there to allow people to select and practice and test what they know and/or are learning within the guidelines that they've been taught even if part of their practice is to stretch and experiment around those guidelines.

I came across this on the Aikido Journal page, and I thought I would repost what I said there, here. I hope that I am not very late in this discussion.

This is something that happens in most schools of Martial Arts, Aikido included. Whenever I have had a group class, I have always offered that sort of practice to my students. As far as visitors, well, that's different. When I have a visitor come, and they approach me as such, I have to remember that they have only seen me do Aikido, and that the class may have been catered just so they can keep up. They don't know that I have a background in Tang Soo Do, I cross train in Wing Chun, Kickboxing/Jeet Kune Do, Kali, BJJ, etc. They don't know that I used to beat people up on the streets all of the time, cos I used to be a complete d***. I usually entertain anyone that wants to see what's up, as long as they are both friendly, and they have signed the waiver. If they seem unfriendly, disrespectful, or even potentially dangerous, I usually warn them to leave. Frankly, my students understand that if someone comes around like to my dojo, that we are either going to call the police, or jump the person, and then call the police. Dojos are not the place for strangers to come in and bust up the place.

I'll share with you an anecdote:

I used to sublet a space back before 9/11, and I had about five regular students that I would pound on. Those great students of mine were my "wolfpack." They trained so hard, it was absurd. A friend of one of my students trained at a Kung Fu school, and in his style, they sparred and competed regularly, colored belts, etc. My student would often come to class excited to tell me about her friend's newest tournament success, or promotion or such. I met him on a few occasions also, He is a very respectful young man who I am still friends with to this day. He often came and watched my classes, and was waiting for permission from me to attend a practice.

Well, when 9/11 happened, the gentleman that I subleased from was called back into active duty, so I lost the space. I would have the students train in my backyard until I figured something else out. On one of these occasions, this young man came over to train. The subject of that class was Aiki Jo (go figure), and he did very well for his first time. When he was leaving, he thanked me for the instruction, and suggested that next time, he bring his gear over so that we can spar.

So.

Here's my problem. I'm extremely proud about my training. Anyone that knows me will tell you that I'm not the best by far, or even that good at all, but, I take my training very seriously. Next problem is that he put me on front street, in front of all of my students, in my very home. Last problem, I was still dealing with people in my area feeling that Aikido was not a viable art. In my mind, had I simply said no, he was going to go back to his school, and tell everyone how "nice" I was, but I was not open to any sort of match or challenge. I asked him what sort of gear, and he described a full head-to-toe set up of safety gear. To which I replied:

"We don't need any of that stuff. We can spar right now."

Uh-oh. Everyone in my room looked worried as I said this, including the young man. I assured him that this would be a very friendly encounter. So we go to the backyard, and we both warm up a bit first. He asked me if we were only striking, or if we could use grappling also, and I told him he should feel free to do whatever he wants. When we started, I was gauging his tactics and strategy, playing "the game" as I call it in sparring. I wanted to see how he dealt with attacks to his center, so I threw a very simple probing front kick.

It landed squarely and struck his testicles, and he immediately bent over and had to stop. This was in the first 15 seconds or so.

I didn't mean to even hit him at all, it just happened. I stopped and tried to help him, and he was fine. Once he collected himself, he wanted to continue. I insisted that we shouldn't given that he just suffered a mild injury, but he insisted that we continue, so I obliged him. As a testament to his good training, he managed to pull off a very very nice takedown in sparring. I was punching him and he threw me in something like Sokumen Iriminage, augmented with a front leg sweep.

Well, he tried to throw me like that . As he began to push back against my chest and kick my leg forward, I picked up my leg that he was sweeping and kicked his face, and followed up with three punches to his face and and sidekick to his sternum, which made him give up. We concluded the match with respect, and I gave him the simple advice that every technique has a counter, that's all.

I asked my student, his friend, what she learned that night. She said, "keep your hands up!" I explained to her that I simply would not go to his school, and after the class, insist on touching hands with his Sifu, and that if she ever did something so stupid, she should expect to get beaten up. I explained to her that in the culture of Martial Arts, there is a time and a place for everything, including matches and challenges, and as Martial Artists, we should always be careful. I once went to a Wing Chun seminar taught by my Sifu's Sifu, and he got challenged. That's a different story for another day, but suffice to say, that guy got beaten up too.

All of this to say that all other factors aside, I admire the instructors willingness to showcase exactly how capable Aikido is.

Autrelle

Your post recalls something I tried to say earlier in this thread, that there is a difference between "defending aikido" and "defending yourself." You have a varied background in the martial arts, and you called upon your varied background in dealing with the challenge. Yet you conclude that accepting challenges can "showcase how capable Aikido is." Actually, accepting challenges will only showcase how capable you are.

If an instructor has trained in no other art than aikido, he or she could claim that whatever he does must be aikido, but even that would be specious reasoning.

And what about your challenger? Was your challenger challenging aikido? Or was he challenging you. I believe that both of you may have thought that aikido was being challenged, but in reality he could only have challenged you and that you could only have defended yourself, not aikido.

Dan

Hi Autrelle, haven't read you in a while, good to read you again.

I do have one small concern about your post...are you sure there was a "challenge" at all? In many of the arts where there is sparring, asking to spar is not considered a challenge at all.

There was one tae qwan do (sp?) school I attended, where the juniors were not allowed to ask the seniors to spar. But that was the only place I remember where asking to spar was considered a challenge. And in wrestling, people would roll all the time. I hear it's the same in BJJ.

Best,
Ron (I guess I'm not sure what it serves to shut down someone so decisively in a sparring session...just trying to get my head around the topic)

Personally I find the subject fascinating. The core of aikido is Aiki and its effectiveness; always was, still is, and always will be. No matter how many dilatants say otherwise -they cannot change the message of the founder. It's documented in what he said and in what he did. The misunderstanding of both his message and his actions and what HE was doing with his body as well as how the ukes themselves warped that in later exhibitions as understood by the vast majority of MAers will never change the reality of what he did and said.

Aiki is the penultimate force in the martial arts. Viable in any format. Open mat was never a question to the founder, it's not a question today among those capable of delivering his message in physical form.
That said, I think the discussion is difficult to have with those doing aikido -as a form- compared to those doing aiki. Learning Aiki and then training to actually use in combative formats results in knockout power, and grappling control, full-on with total resistance with trained grapplers. The hard work is tempering your body to create aiki and then learning how to use it against people who can *actually* fight. But first you have to learn it from someone capable of doing that...and capable of teaching it to you. As more and more are finding out...finding people who actually know aiki and can use it in combatives may be difficult.

As for open mats and the martial arts
There used to be an honesty about skill in martial arts. Capable men were appluaded and sought after for that quality. All that is being gradually replaced by a majority who are unwilling to step up and instead rely on ranking from within and cooperative play as validation of something or other. It's a reversing, or revision of all that martial arts were ever about There is a new modern artifice that on many levels seeks to replace the reality of what they are practicing-even to the extent of rewriting the history and intent of the arts themselves. While on the one hand people applaud the arts founders-on the other they condem the very practices and paths of the men who founded the arts in the first place. Even to the point of dismissing their martial procliviities as something to be forgiven for or *understood* in context by a more educated post modern practitioners view! If it wasn't such a sad a state of affairs it would be comical. I have always maintained that were most these arts founders to come back they would hardly recognize what has become of their own arts- in our less than capable hands.

As for Aikido
Were Ueshiba NOT a budo man who took on challengers in an open mat format-and who went to other mats as well.....we would not be discussing him or his art in the first place. he and his art would be dead to us.

Hello Ron
Shutting down someones game is not all that relevant unless you are capable of much more. Further, to do so while playing other peoples games-not your own.
Examples; were you to do push hands with a Master level Chinese teacher and shut him down and look in his eyes and see it on his face and YOU know you are capable of much more...then it says a lot to the both of you. Or have teachers push you and see them bounce themselves off of you, or see BJJ, Judo and MMA guys exhaust themselves trying to hit or throw you and you're fine and have not unloaded yet yourself. So, in one sense its not about stopping someone with your body. Its more about what you are capable of delivering were you to just go at it full-on, right? And about the research. So what if...most of the time you never need to go that far? It does tell you something about comparative worth of your art and/ or your training regimen. Further still...its about research and learning what works or not, what worked better, what YOU need to work on and develop more,just like the old timers did to become....the founders in the first place.
Never would I or they have imagined that as a practice- it would be condemned by a modern awareness.
Cheers
Dan

Well, I guess I didn't look at it from that light. I kind of looked at it as someone in an aikido dojo was asked to spar, and when they did, they kind of beat the training partner up. They didn't just bounce them around, they didn't throw them, they didn't just stop their throws...they kind messed them up a bit. It's not clear how much from the post.

I'm asking was what happened a "challenge"? I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a challenge...I am asking if there WAS one to begin with. And if not, is what happened appropriate to no challenge to begin with?

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale wrote: Well, I guess I didn't look at it from that light. I kind of looked at it as someone in an aikido dojo was asked to spar, and when they did, they kind of beat the training partner up. They didn't just bounce them around, they didn't throw them, they didn't just stop their throws...they kind messed them up a bit. It's not clear how much from the post. I'm asking was what happened a "challenge"? I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a challenge...I am asking if there WAS one to begin with. And if not, is what happened appropriate to no challenge to begin with? Best, Ron

Hi Bud
I was addressing the OP. It was pretty clear and definitive in that the 6th dan said anyone could test his aikido and then he went on to discuss MMA types (whatever that means these days) who looked down upon his teacher.
While most tend to see my input as negative toward aikido they completely miss the many times I argue FOR aikido. I state over and over that "Aikido can be one of the most powerful arts in the world." ....just not in the hands or with the practices of most in the art I have ever seen or felt. It comes to its own only with the aiki used in te aikido of the founder. Which is on another planet from everyone I continue to meet in the art. So the idea of open mat really is a non-starter for discussion to me. It should be a pre-requisite.

Cheers
Dan

Ah, that explains it! I was addressing Autrelle, the last post before mine.



Best,
Ron

Dan Rubin wrote: Autrelle Your post recalls something I tried to say earlier in this thread, that there is a difference between "defending aikido" and "defending yourself." You have a varied background in the martial arts, and you called upon your varied background in dealing with the challenge. Yet you conclude that accepting challenges can "showcase how capable Aikido is." Actually, accepting challenges will only showcase how capable you are. If an instructor has trained in no other art than aikido, he or she could claim that whatever he does must be aikido, but even that would be specious reasoning. And what about your challenger? Was your challenger challenging aikido? Or was he challenging you. I believe that both of you may have thought that aikido was being challenged, but in reality he could only have challenged you and that you could only have defended yourself, not aikido. Dan

True, true, true. I understood that the original poster said that his teacher only used Aikido, and I was commending that. As far as what was happening to me, you have great points. The only thing that I know is that when people ask me what I do, I tell them, Aikido. Anyone that knows me knows I do Aikido and promote Aikido. So even though the guy was not challenging Aikido in so much, it would have come out as an Aikido guy getting beaten up in front of his Aikido students. But you are right - I could have been more exacting.

Hey Ron, great to see you. I've been working on my own blog entries and an Aiki Jo manual. If you're interested, hit me up.

Cheers everyone!

Autrelle Holland wrote: Anyone that knows me knows I do Aikido and promote Aikido. So even though the guy was not challenging Aikido in so much, it would have come out as an Aikido guy getting beaten up in front of his Aikido students.

I see what you mean. That puts an interesting and ironic twist on my argument.

Dan

Dan Harden wrote: Aiki is the penultimate force in the martial arts.

Others probably know the answer from your previous posts but for me and the other newbies on the board: What is the ultimate force in martial arts in your opinion?

...rab

Ron Tisdale wrote: Hi Autrelle, haven't read you in a while, good to read you again. I do have one small concern about your post...are you sure there was a "challenge" at all? In many of the arts where there is sparring, asking to spar is not considered a challenge at all.

Ron,

Years later, I reflect that you may be right. At that moment, I may have let my own insecurities get the best of me. If true victory IS self-victory, that day was a loss for sure. But even today, I can't say that I wouldn't handle a similar situation to differently. Maybe I would. Humph.

Hey, remember *you* were in the situation...there is no way in which *I* would know better than you. Kudos for handling it safely! You know me...I just like to over think things...

But seriously, I do like to entertain these thoughts from time to time, if only to have the thinking out of the way if a situation arises...the flip side of that is re-evaluting my thinking from time to time, so that I don't act on thinking that is not up to date, so to speak.

I can only guess, but if I had to, I would guess that I would just do the best I could...and if I found out I was faced with more than what it first seemed, then escalate appropriately.

Best,
Ron