Integrating aikido with other martial arts.

I have noticed that many sensei's i have trained wih are also dan grades in many different martial arts, including jui-jitsu, hapkido, ninjitsu and others (in one case krav maga).

I would love to start doing other martial arts but dont have the time.

I would like to hear peoples thoughts on 'mixed martial arts' as i were :P

Mark.

Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is a waste for me. To me it's like a salad bowl and you throw everything in including the kitchen sink, mix it up and call it something else. That just means rubbish. I am dual ranked in judo (Rokudan) and Tomiki Aikido (Shichidan) and I don't mix the 2 up. They are both pure martial arts and they will stay that way for me. I get calls all the time inquiring about "Combat Aikido" and the difference between "Combat Aikido" and "Real Aikido". If you want to take another martial art too, that's great but don't try to mix them up. I got a flyer one time not long ago that said "Master Jung's 'Tai Do Hua---8 martial arts taught as 1!!!! One of the "martial arts" he taught was BUDO!!!! MMA at its best!!!!! hahaha

I think good training methodoloies are what they are good. The good ones have survived and continue because they teach some good things.

I think there is value in study different martial arts (I study three: Judo, Aikido, BJJ).

I practice all three separate and distinct. However, there is a synthesis and cross over that occurs between all of them since they are all pretty much related in someway.

I think it is up to the martial artist to internalize and develop his/her own practice and interpretation.

I do think though that there is also much merit and a good reason to keep them separate.

Phil Van Treese wrote: Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is a waste for me.I am dual ranked in judo (Rokudan) and Tomiki Aikido (Shichidan) and I don't mix the 2 up.

Oh the irony.

Hmmm,

I agree each art has depth on its own that really requires thorough practice to reveal. But its never a bad idea to pick up another art that interests you if you can manage it. But you said yourself you don't have the time so why bother asking?

I see some weakness in the aikido entry and positioning the way we are taught in one class that is dispelled when another teacher teaches it the way he understands it. With the first school, the teacher discourages active questions/insights on real world application of the aikido moves, and with the 2nd school the teacher welcomes it.

Because my 2nd art demands real world application, I've had trouble in reconciling it with my first aikido school. But that is where my 2nd aikido school comes into play. Now the 2nd aikido teacher has had more teachers exposing him to aikido. He's had yoshinkan, shin shin toitsu, aikikai and daitoryu. I think because of that he's able to deliver both the aiki and martial aspect in his art.

Problem for me he's in another country so I only get to see him twice a year.

The point I'm trying to make here is that, if you find a good aikido teacher, this art is enough. I know respected people like Kevin will argue the point of grappling and such that aikidoist don't do. Trust me, I've seen a good aikidoist fend off a good grappler, a Muay Thai prize fighter and then some. I'll be the first to say I'm not in his league. But you see, its possible to achieve martial prowess with just one art. (It doesn't equate to aikido better than XYZ art though.) You just got to understand how it works. That comes with intense perseverance.

Mark Watson wrote: I have noticed that many sensei's i have trained wih are also dan grades in many different martial arts, including jui-jitsu, hapkido, ninjitsu and others (in one case krav maga). I would love to start doing other martial arts but dont have the time. I would like to hear peoples thoughts on 'mixed martial arts' as i were :P Mark.

I didn't set out to do five martial arts at once. It's more accurate to say I am such a huge creature of habit that instead of switching from art A to art B, I keep doing A and B. And not all at once, either.

So in 1996, I was just doing Karate. In 1997, I started doing Kali, and I kept doing Karate. In 2000, I added Tai Chi to the mix. In 2003, Silat got added in because one of my Kali teachers started teaching that. In 2004, I returned to Aikido after a 16 year abscence and found I appreciate it more because my Kali instructors had drilled into me that every art has something to offer as it is, although it might be hard in some cases to figure out what. In 2006, I stopped doing Tai Chi, for reasons I won't get into here, and added Jun Fan Gung Fu/Jeet Kune Do to the mix. So it is more something that has accumulated over time as opposed to something I set out to do. Somenone else might have switched every time, which is fine.

I don't try to consciously integrate arts, although in my morning warm-ups, I do stretches from Silat side-by-side with Aikido because both do a lot on the floor, so in that regard they seem to compliment each other. Other combinations may not work so well. I see that as something requiring a lot of time and thought to identify if things "fit" as opposed to just slapping things together and calling it a new martial art.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: I think there is value in study different martial arts (I study three: Judo, Aikido, BJJ). I practice all three separate and distinct. However, there is a synthesis and cross over that occurs between all of them since they are all pretty much related in someway.

I think it's interesting that many people seem to forget that all three of these arts are 20th Century developments, and subsets of older, more diverse arts.

It's actually nice that each has preserved important aspects that the others did away with. To a degree, each also made some innovations that the others did not.

I believe these three can be fitted together seamlessly and give a well-rounded repertoire.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: I think it is up to the martial artist to internalize and develop his/her own practice and interpretation.

Excellent point.

This is exactly what most of the supposedly great martial artists are recognized as doing (certainly Ueshiba, Kano, and Gracie).

Why criticize others for doing the same thing?

As opposed to what some (mostly beginners) think, a martial art is not the techniques, rather it is more a combination of multiple elements, partial list:
- state of mind,
- strategic concepts,
- forms of movement,
- ways of triggering responses,
- methodological approach,
- threats
- level of violence in response (desired end state)

When someone else integrates multiple arts, he is in fact creating a new M.A. it might be better in some respects to some people, or not. It is rarely better in all respects compared to any of the parenting M.A.

The best way is to learn (or at least) expose yourself to multiple M.A. and then perform the mix yourself. Note that in some cases, exposure to other M.A. is sufficient for you to realize more on the things you do.

Amir

Amir Krause wrote: As opposed to what some (mostly beginners) think, a martial art is not the techniques, rather it is more a combination of multiple elements, partial list: - state of mind, - strategic concepts, - forms of movement, - ways of triggering responses, - methodological approach, - threats - level of violence in response (desired end state)

"Strategic concepts," "forms of movement," and "threats" are all related, I would say inseparably so, to the techniques a martial art utilizes. "Level of violence in response" is also related to the choice of techniques, albeit to a lesser degree.

In the natural world, form follows function (maybe, form fits function is more accurate, but it has less of a ring that way.)

"All things in nature have a shape, that is to say, a form, an outward semblance, that tells us what they are, that distinguishes them from ourselves and from each other. -- Unfailingly in nature these shapes express the inner life, the native quality, of the animal, tree, bird, fish, that they present to us; they are so characteristic, so recognizable, that we say, simply, it is 'natural' it should be so. . . . Unceasingly the essence of things is taking shape in the matter of things, and this unspeakable process we call birth and growth." -- Louis Sullivan

The more I train the more I think there are only two martial arts subdivided into several schools.

The older art is the battlefield/self defence stuff. It's mindset is that it can teach principles and can develop in you the mental abilities to face up to conflict but it can't really teach you how to fight because there are so many variables in actual fighting.
All the schools of this art contain elements of striking, joint locking, weapons and throwing but utilise them in different proportions.

The newer one is the sporting one which has the mindset that finding and learning useful techniques is all that matters and that under controled circumstances these techniques can be shown to be effective in uncontroled circumstances.

Alex Lawrence wrote: The more I train the more I think there are only two martial arts subdivided into several schools. The older art is the battlefield/self defence stuff. It's mindset is that it can teach principles and can develop in you the mental abilities to face up to conflict but it can't really teach you how to fight because there are so many variables in actual fighting. All the schools of this art contain elements of striking, joint locking, weapons and throwing but utilise them in different proportions. The newer one is the sporting one which has the mindset that finding and learning useful techniques is all that matters and that under controled circumstances these techniques can be shown to be effective in uncontroled circumstances.

Couldn't agree more, very good.

David

Mark Watson wrote: I would like to hear peoples thoughts on 'mixed martial arts' as i were

I've done 3 different arts over the years (karate, jujutsu, aikido), and each had something to add that the others were weak in.

I've found that aikido people (up to and including a couple of 6th dans) tend to be very poor at striking techniques if they haven't studied something like karate or kung fu. And as for kicking...

Jujutsu and judo normally have a lot more groundwork and grappling than either of the other two. They also train in taking harder breakfalls than aikido, IME. But (again, IME) there tends to be more strength against strength involved. I'm not sure there is supposed to be :-)

Aikido is in many ways the most difficult technically, but I find it teaches better movements (blending, redirecting and so on). Karate is very weak in this regard, as so much of the training is in lines and directly forwards and directly backwards. Most karate dojo don't do any sort of throwing, locking, breakfalls etc either.

So personally, I find you can take a bit from everywhere and make it fit together. Eventually, you find that the same principles are common to all of them. There are only so many ways to hit, throw or apply a lock, after all.

However, I would suggest getting reasonable (ie first dan) at one art first, then adding others afterwards.

Michael Varin wrote: "Strategic concepts," "forms of movement," and "threats" are all related, I would say inseparably so, to the techniques a martial art utilizes. "Level of violence in response" is also related to the choice of techniques, albeit to a lesser degree. In the natural world, form follows function (maybe, form fits function is more accurate, but it has less of a ring that way.) "All things in nature have a shape, that is to say, a form, an outward semblance, that tells us what they are, that distinguishes them from ourselves and from each other. -- Unfailingly in nature these shapes express the inner life, the native quality, of the animal, tree, bird, fish, that they present to us; they are so characteristic, so recognizable, that we say, simply, it is 'natural' it should be so. . . . Unceasingly the essence of things is taking shape in the matter of things, and this unspeakable process we call birth and growth." -- Louis Sullivan

In some ways, I agree, on the other hand, very similar threats and cultures have created multiple M.A. (see how many Ju-jutsu styles there are, not all are similar).

Alex Lawrence wrote: The more I train the more I think there are only two martial arts subdivided into several schools. The older art is the battlefield/self defence stuff. It's mindset is that it can teach principles and can develop in you the mental abilities to face up to conflict but it can't really teach you how to fight because there are so many variables in actual fighting. All the schools of this art contain elements of striking, joint locking, weapons and throwing but utilise them in different proportions. The newer one is the sporting one which has the mindset that finding and learning useful techniques is all that matters and that under controled circumstances these techniques can be shown to be effective in uncontroled circumstances.

Just note that sporting M.A. are often the older ones, and not the other way around.

Amir

Kevin Leavitt wrote: I think there is value in study different martial arts (I study three: Judo, Aikido, BJJ). I practice all three separate and distinct. However, there is a synthesis and cross over that occurs between all of them since they are all pretty much related in someway. I think it is up to the martial artist to internalize and develop his/her own practice and interpretation. I do think though that there is also much merit and a good reason to keep them separate.

I think that the number of people who can think and move deeply within even one art are very few and far between. It is depth in any art that allows the observational skill to see where the differences between arts resolve to commonalities. The commonalities are worthwhile, but I don't think they are sought easily in parallel -- because they all seem lie in the nuances, which require that depth of movement and thought to perceive well.

But, more personally, I find it simply distracting -- like trying to speak English, French and Urdu in company in quick succession -- especially because I haven't even learned any Urdu ....

Though I can ask for a beer in ten languages -- and let's be serious -- what else do you really need??

There is a synthesis and a cross over that occurs between some martial arts. See the awesome videos. I love it. It works for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7GfQdB9a8Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SivWAcPlzFg&NR=1

I think what everyone is missing is that it isn't the art that is good or bad. All martial arts have merit and are efective. All martial arts have changed over the years simply because combat is no longer what it used to be. Whether a martial art is effective or not comes down to the individual.

Well since your asking for opinions...

Personally Im into the idea of mixing Thai Boxing with Aikido...as well as B.J.J. (for better or worse there is no B.J.J. in our neighborhood.)

I think it would be fun to put on some gloves (that you can grab with) and go for it...kick, punch, throw, pin, etc., all for the fun of it. - but thats just me.

Try it out, see what you think...there may be a valid reason for holding off a few kyus before you do start to cross train...easier on you as far as learning is concerned.

As for who is the toughest - no one...its all a game, have fun.

Peace

dAlen

Lyle Laizure wrote: I think what everyone is missing is that it isn't the art that is good or bad. All martial arts have merit and are efective. All martial arts have changed over the years simply because combat is no longer what it used to be. Whether a martial art is effective or not comes down to the individual.

Sorry to be contrary, but I disagree. There are many folks out there that are doing alot of stuff that they simply have no clue about what they are doing. They are doing alot of stuff wrong. They apply the wrong training methods, and honestly believe they are teaching folks something of value when they have no real idea or qualification about what they are doing.

They could be actually teaching methods that even appear to be good on the surface, but they comprehensively have no conceptual idea about how to synthesize it properly.

It's like having a headache and giving someone an aspriin and it works one time and then declaring yourself an doctor or an expert in medicine. Sure giving an aspirin or even a massage to a person might alleviate an headache...sometimes, but that doesn't make you an comprehensive expert in solving headaches! it simply worked that time.

Unfortunately, I think we approach martial arts many times this way. We have folks that train in something that works sometimes, or appears to work and then they do it for a while, then hang out a shingle and call themselves "Sensei".

I am sorry, but "martial artist" , martial arts and "fighting" are big words that have a bunch of meaning and varioius folks have various criteria upon which to judge "effecitveness" or "endstates" off of. However, in reality, the criteria for measuring the effectiveness or endstates is defined in "emotional" and "conceptual" terms...and not in really quantitative terms.

What we have alot of are snake oil salesman calling themselves Sensei unfortunately.

hope this makes some sense...It is late, and I am jet lagged still!

Dalen Johnson wrote: Well since your asking for opinions... Personally Im into the idea of mixing Thai Boxing with Aikido...as well as B.J.J. (for better or worse there is no B.J.J. in our neighborhood.) I think it would be fun to put on some gloves (that you can grab with) and go for it...kick, punch, throw, pin, etc., all for the fun of it. - but thats just me. Try it out, see what you think...there may be a valid reason for holding off a few kyus before you do start to cross train...easier on you as far as learning is concerned. As for who is the toughest - no one...its all a game, have fun. Peace dAlen

yeah but for many of us out there it really is not a game and is not about fun.

I mean why stand around and poke at each other with gloves "just to see what happens"?

Yeah I agree you kinda start getting some "experiences" out of it...but really do you think about the focus of why you want to do this and what the training point you are trying to accomplish?

I think there is merit at putting on some gloves...to protect uke for example if you goal is to put "combative pressure" on someone to train there ability to deal with strikes and punches while achieving a clinch or regaining dominance.

I see very little value in dancing around the ring trading punches back and forth ala boxing style unless you are training to be a boxer and you are working within the parameters of those rules.

This kinda goes with my crazy post above about endstates and crtieria? what is it that you are really trying to achieve with that training?

I think it is important to define the objectives and develop scenarios and constraints to test those objectives and to do it in a safe manner, then assess how it worked out.

I see little value in "trying it out for fun just to see what happens!" Cause what happens alot of the time is that you form a judgement or reach a false conclusion about what really happened in the experiment.....

We have had whole martial arts formed around such bogus conclusions and you end up with people dancing around doing a bunch of crazy looking and weird stuff.

Lyle Laizure wrote: I think what everyone is missing is that it isn't the art that is good or bad. All martial arts have merit and are efective ..... Whether a martial art is effective or not comes down to the individual.

AMEN!

Dalen Johnson wrote: Well since your asking for opinions... Personally Im into the idea of mixing Thai Boxing with Aikido...as well as B.J.J. (for better or worse there is no B.J.J. in our neighborhood.) I think it would be fun to put on some gloves (that you can grab with) and go for it...kick, punch, throw, pin, etc., all for the fun of it. - but thats just me. Try it out, see what you think...there may be a valid reason for holding off a few kyus before you do start to cross train...easier on you as far as learning is concerned. As for who is the toughest - no one...its all a game, have fun. Peace dAlen

Anyway I've been training Aikido for quite a few years and have started training in other martial arts.

Right now, I find limited integration potential between Aikido and the arts that I am taking up (CMD and BJJ).

In CMD:
The stance is all different, the weight distribution is different and the strategy is different. Plus you wear gloves most of the time. The whole platform is different and it's hard to integrate.

I do find that CMD through its sparring environment gives me a lot of perception when being attacked as in i can read moves better and am more prepared for unexpected, quick attacks which I think is invaluable.


In BJJ;
Similarly, the Aikido I have learnt does not involve any ground fighting whatsoever.

I believe this should be the same in most cases. I notice that my balance is a lot better and I'm not as easily taken down but that's as far as it goes as it's a completely different set of techniques. I also notice that for my size, I am considered pretty 'strong' due to the techniques in centralization I have picked up in Aikido. My hands aren't easily bent and I can drive my weight into more techniques.

BJJ does have more integration potential due to you having that added ability to fight on the ground should you wish to take it there.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: yeah but for many of us out there it really is not a game and is not about fun.

Even for those of us for whom active combat is no longer a recurring activity, it is not honest to the nature of the thing to make it purely play -- even if it may be play-ful...

Kevin Leavitt wrote: I think it is important to define the objectives and develop scenarios and constraints to test those objectives and to do it in a safe manner, then assess how it worked out. I see little value in "trying it out for fun just to see what happens!" Cause what happens alot of the time is that you form a judgement or reach a false conclusion about what really happened in the experiment..... We have had whole martial arts formed around such bogus conclusions and you end up with people dancing around doing a bunch of crazy looking and weird stuff.

The measure I was taught of understanding a weapon is whether you could break it down to it lowest components rebuild it and then deploy it successfully - with your eyes closed -- or don't they still do that in ye olde Armee ? Marines still do and they trained us naval aviators back in the day.

I approach nearly every class that way -- I start with something, tear it apart and then work on a piece or pieces in succession showing how to rebuild it into a coherent working whole. That way no matter what initial reaction to a given attack comes out spontaneously from a student's training he knows there is a coherent path to completion of the engagement -- even though he cannot see it directly, and it does not go in a straight line.

That is not to say that different weapons or arts do not work as effectively as others, or that they are not inherently related and equally deployable by a well-trained user of another, technically quite different weapon. But in teaching a weapon in depth it does not help to initially have a table of mixed M-16 and Kalashnikov parts to sort through with a blindfold on ... An interesting and possibly useful exercise, yes, but only after one has already learned to breakdown and rebuild both separately, and knows the nature of the different parts intimately in isolation.

Mark Watson wrote: I have noticed that many sensei's i have trained wih are also dan grades in many different martial arts, including jui-jitsu, hapkido, ninjitsu and others (in one case krav maga). I would love to start doing other martial arts but dont have the time. I would like to hear peoples thoughts on 'mixed martial arts' as i were :P Mark.

Well
Not duplicate kev post but I really depends what you want to do with it.
If it is MMA that you are after MT or kick boxing and judo, BJJ, CACC, sambo will do the trick nicey.

If is lets say medieval martial art, you need punching kicking and a standing grappling art (aikido, JJ) and a look at BJJ is you are interested in wrestling in armour.

Now to be honest, a punch is a punch regardless of the art.
Before the term jab was coined people were executing a quick straight strike from the lead hand.
What is called ippon seionage, is a Bain Bruch (member breaker) in med martial arts, and a variation of shiho nague in the aikido I practice.

The hardest part in mixing things, it to get everything to work together, thanks to MMA it is a bit easier but whatever you pick you need to understand the scope and the paradigm of what that particular art is and translate that into whatever you want to achieve.
Ie back mount is good in BJJ but not that great in ground armoured wrestling.

Not to mention finding a version of the said arts that actually does what it says on the tin.

phil

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Sorry to be contrary, but I disagree. There are many folks out there that are doing alot of stuff that they simply have no clue about what they are doing. They are doing alot of stuff wrong. They apply the wrong training methods, and honestly believe they are teaching folks something of value when they have no real idea or qualification about what they are doing. They could be actually teaching methods that even appear to be good on the surface, but they comprehensively have no conceptual idea about how to synthesize it properly. It's like having a headache and giving someone an aspriin and it works one time and then declaring yourself an doctor or an expert in medicine. Sure giving an aspirin or even a massage to a person might alleviate an headache...sometimes, but that doesn't make you an comprehensive expert in solving headaches! it simply worked that time. Unfortunately, I think we approach martial arts many times this way. We have folks that train in something that works sometimes, or appears to work and then they do it for a while, then hang out a shingle and call themselves "Sensei". I am sorry, but "martial artist" , martial arts and "fighting" are big words that have a bunch of meaning and varioius folks have various criteria upon which to judge "effecitveness" or "endstates" off of. However, in reality, the criteria for measuring the effectiveness or endstates is defined in "emotional" and "conceptual" terms...and not in really quantitative terms. What we have alot of are snake oil salesman calling themselves Sensei unfortunately.

I still beleive it comes down to the individual. That being said I don't disagree that there are snake oil salesmen out there but they exsist for different reasons than this thread's existence. My point is only that a good/quality instructor that teaches his students and the material he teaches is of good quality then it comes down to the individual. Whether are martial art works or not will come down to the individual using it, his/her mentality. There has to be physical skill but all the skill in the world means nothing if you do not have the mental capability to apply the technique in the manner it needs to be applied.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: yeah but for many of us out there it really is not a game and is not about fun. I mean why stand around and poke at each other with gloves "just to see what happens"? Yeah I agree you kinda start getting some "experiences" out of it...but really do you think about the focus of why you want to do this and what the training point you are trying to accomplish? I think there is merit at putting on some gloves...to protect uke for example if you goal is to put "combative pressure" on someone to train there ability to deal with strikes and punches while achieving a clinch or regaining dominance. I see very little value in dancing around the ring trading punches back and forth ala boxing style unless you are training to be a boxer and you are working within the parameters of those rules. This kinda goes with my crazy post above about endstates and crtieria? what is it that you are really trying to achieve with that training? I think it is important to define the objectives and develop scenarios and constraints to test those objectives and to do it in a safe manner, then assess how it worked out. I see little value in "trying it out for fun just to see what happens!" Cause what happens alot of the time is that you form a judgement or reach a false conclusion about what really happened in the experiment..... We have had whole martial arts formed around such bogus conclusions and you end up with people dancing around doing a bunch of crazy looking and weird stuff.

Yeah, thats the great thing about it though...people finding what fits them best...things change like the tides of the ocean, and everyone finds what fits them at the time.

At the present moment I would like to just have some fun and add some punches and kicks. When I was growing up, out in the backwood middle of nowhere, me and the neighbor kids used to take off our shoes and kick box...minus the punching. Solid kicks to anyplace but the face and groin, and we had fun...no one got hurt.

Horse play, I suppose you could call it, and when you start getting good at something like aikido, it becomes more like a chess match. lol

Anyway...who knows, energy flows differently...one moment something is cool that wont be cool later down the road.

peace

dAlen

p.s.
I will add, Im training in Aikido to learn how to fight so I dont have to fight...which might sound contrary to what is stated above...and another irony is in the process learning I dont have to learn to fight in order not to fight.
A fight comes out of the state of mind of both parties in their egos. Now as for what Im talking about, its more for the sport of it...or even horseplay if thats a better term - as I dont believe you can really define by sport who is 'better'. Each person has their up days and down days....

p.s.s.
Scary still is that I want to potentially teach aikido one day.