The Topic I never Wanted To Post

I here ya....i have the exact same issues with punching. Rolling is not a problem as long as you avoid eye contact

Mark Murray wrote: You've touched upon the highly debated point we in the aikido world are having. To me, it's obvious that IF Ueshiba, Tohei, Tomiki, Shioda, etc were very skilled and they all said they did aikido, then some "thing" was lost between then and now if we do not have any more people of that skill level. So, no, I don't believe that the art needs to be "updated". Rather it needs to regain what it originally had. If it does that, IMO, it will meet modern standards. Mark

Not to be the contradiction police, but a few posts back when I talked about the "percent suckage" you said:

"I know of a couple of systems that are doing good stuff and a couple that are not doing good stuff. >So, for me, say 50/50-ish. "

So on the one hand you're saying finding a good Aikido school is easy (50-50 in your experience), on the other you seem to subscribe to the idea that the core of Aikido has been lost, as the internal guys say. Among the people posting on this thread there must be thousands of direct and indirect connections with other Aikidoka, and the only people generally acknowledged by the board to have these skills in any serious measure are Dan Harden, Mike Sigman, Akuzawa, and Rob John. We can presume that there may be other more advanced people that train with them or their teachers, but still the numbers are vanishingly small compared to the population of Aikidoka. It's a far cry from 50-50, it sounds like very small, secretive groups that are just becoming publicly known.

If this is correct, then the overwhelming majority of Aikido people doing sankyo are just doing a lock, basically, and completely missing the boat. Is that a fair interpretation? However for those who are working on the original core body skill or whatever you want to call it, it could be done by training sankyo or anything else, and the Dan Hardens of the world don't seem to have anything to do with sankyo. Harden seems to incorporate this into MMA, which to me is the only thing that makes sense. I've seen you espouse the "you fight like you train" idea, which I agree with, so I'm still confused as to why you wouldn't train an MMA technique internally instead of a sankyo internally. The only thing I can come up with is that if you train in an Aikido school I suppose you really don't have much choice. Other than that I'm at a loss as to how "train internally" + "you fight how you train" leads to training something that you still won't deal with in a fight internally or otherwise. How you do sankyo has no bearing on how likely sankyo is to be on the menu against serious opposition. It's still a low-percenter. Restoring internal skills to Aikido sounds great, but there is still technique and training to be updated.

Hi Fiona,

Fiona Evans wrote: Many of the comments in this thread seem to be from people that train in aikido at beginner levels.

Actually I think most of the comments are from people who have advanced beyond what most Aikido schools offer.

Fiona Evans wrote: Aikido techniques against a hand or shoulder grab are beginner level techniques. Techniques against shomenuchi or yokomenuchi are medium level techniques. We start small, with soft attacks, and uke learns to flow with the technique. But aikido is a martial art. A shomen attack becomes a straight punch (or a knife stab), a yokemen becomes a roundhouse punch (or a knife slash). When aikido students understand the basics (how the techniques work, how to flow and extend), then their training should start to get harder - and by that I mean, the attacks should get harder. They should be realistic - uke should be coming in hard and fast, trying to knock your block off. Attacks should come from different distances, at different speeds, from different directions, from multiple attackers.

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe it. I have NEVER seen Aikido done against anything I would consider realistic. Doing a reverse punch as hard and fast as you can is still meaningless when nage knows it's coming and uke leaves his arm hanging out in space for nage to work on. I know this is what passes for realistic every time I have heard this claim, but using stronger faster attacks in cooperative training doesn't make it anywhere near competitive training. The only thing I've seen that's competitive at even a low level is in the aiki-boxing thread, and the result is as expected (with all due respect to those guys). Good modern striking frustrates every attempt to do anything other than modern striking, or going full into a clinch. Any clever counters that depend on manipulating the opponent via his arms are suicide to try on anybody decent, end of story. Anyone making a serious claim to be able to do that can expect the "video or it doesn't happen" refrain, and rightly so.

Fiona Evans wrote: And then when the techniques don't work, you go back to the basics. Because if the techniques don't work, then you don't understand aikido yet.

That's easy to say, but difficult to prove - in fact no one has done it. No one has demonstrably gotten to a level where the techniques will work against any serious competition, let alone elite competition. The alternative and more likely correct explanation for things not working is that current Aikido won't cut it without serious retrofitting and updating. The idea that it's the person and not the art is, objectively speaking, hopeful but unproven speculation. The OP should ponder the logical truth of that statement carefully. The last thing I would advise is to simply keep on plugging away as he has.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. If it's the person not the art - why bother training at all?

Amazing. The test of our martial art is getting attacked by a boxer/kick boxer/mmaer. When was the last time that ever happened? How "real" is that?

I've been attacked many times the most common attack in my experience is katadori jodan tsuki, one of those unrealistic Aikido attacks that no-one ever does, supposedly.

To my way of thinking the problem with the entire martial arts world at the moment is that 99% of practitioners and students have never been in a real fight.

Unfortunately we all think like defenders "If I am attacked I will do this" which is fine except we assume that the other guy is going to attack us in the way we expect to defend, we have to get past the idea that people want to fight us.
They don't. They want to beat us up without risking getting beaten up. "know yourself and know your enemy..........."

Aikido doesn't work against boxing attacks...and what? Is boxing an effective form of mugging? Is MMA an effective form of mugging?
May as well ask it "Is Aikido an effective form of mugging?"

The questions we need to ask ourselves are these:

1) How do I get someones phone off someone that doesn't want to hand it over, without getting into a fight?

2) How do I beat someone up in a bar, without getting into a fight?

These aren't really questions of technique, they're strategic questions. We can argue that Aikido as a group of techniques is ineffective against MMA as a group of techniques all day long.

What's important is that which ever group of techniques you chooses fits and counters the strategy employed by people who are actually going to attack you and by asking these questions we can begin to sort out what kind of strategy we are likely to face.

The people Amir Krause calls warriors are the people that understand what it is to attack someone. They know how to do it and so they know how to counter it. Most people in martial arts don't bother worrying about how to beat someone up in a completely unprovoked attack, it's counter to our training and our self image, so we've no clue who our enemy is any how he operates.

I suppose basically our problem is that we're a nice bunch of people trying to become better, whereas really what we need to be doing is spending time getting familiar with being nasty.

Dan Austin wrote: Not to be the contradiction police, but a few posts back when I talked about the "percent suckage" you said: "I know of a couple of systems that are doing good stuff and a couple that are not doing good stuff. >So, for me, say 50/50-ish. " So on the one hand you're saying finding a good Aikido school is easy (50-50 in your experience), on the other you seem to subscribe to the idea that the core of Aikido has been lost, as the internal guys say.

Seems like something of a contradiction, doesn't it. Then again, I'm nowhere near as eloquent as George Ledyard. One day, maybe. I haven't been to a whole lot of other aikido schools. So, take my experiences in that light. And I won't go into the schools doing what I'd consider "bad" stuff, but I'll illustrate a couple of the schools that I think are doing "good" stuff. One would be Itten dojo. Another would be Ledyard's dojo. I've heard some good things about Allen Beebe, so I'd count him in there. Some of the people at Sorrentino's dojo have seen Mike Sigman twice, so there's something there at his dojo. That's four dojos. There are others. And they're working on this "core of Aikido" that's been lost. But, considering that there's hundreds, if not thousands of aikido dojos, no, it wouldn't be easy to find a place like that.

And I didn't say that for everyone it was 50/50. Just that it has been my experience.

Dan Austin wrote: Among the people posting on this thread there must be thousands of direct and indirect connections with other Aikidoka, and the only people generally acknowledged by the board to have these skills in any serious measure are Dan Harden, Mike Sigman, Akuzawa, and Rob John. We can presume that there may be other more advanced people that train with them or their teachers, but still the numbers are vanishingly small compared to the population of Aikidoka. It's a far cry from 50-50, it sounds like very small, secretive groups that are just becoming publicly known.

I think you mistook my saying that some dojos are doing "good stuff" to mean that they are experts in these skills. I didn't mean it that way. I meant that these dojos are doing good stuff. Erg. Look at it this way. There are some dojos that have people who have gone out and trained with the above mentioned people. While there are other dojos where the people do not go outside their system/school and some places where it is frowned upon to go outside their system/school (or so I'm told). For me, the former is doing good stuff while the latter is doing bad stuff.

As another example, Ron's dojo. Utada sensei invites Ikeda sensei in to teach at seminars. That's great, IMO. Not only are the people at the dojo getting some view into another school, they are getting hands on training with Ikeda sensei (He makes it a point to try to get around to everyone there). If you'll remember, Ikeda sensei is training with Ushiro sensei.

Dan Austin wrote: If this is correct, then the overwhelming majority of Aikido people doing sankyo are just doing a lock, basically, and completely missing the boat. Is that a fair interpretation?

I think most people training under a few years in aikido, yeah, that's true. But, not overall. I know of several places that teach sankyo, not as pain compliance, but as a control of the other person's center. But, again, I'm going with my experiences. YMMV, as they say.

Dan Austin wrote: Harden seems to incorporate this into MMA, which to me is the only thing that makes sense.

Hmmm ... If you want to try to make sense of other things, then my best suggestion is to make a workshop with Sigman and a seminar with Akuzawa. While I haven't trained with Akuzawa, I'm pretty sure he incorporates his training differently than Harden or Sigman.

But, the bottom line isn't the incorporation at all. Because, whatever martial art you are doing -- that will be what you incorporate these skills into. These skills aren't "tools to put in your toolbox" to use at opportune times. These skills are like breathing. They become a part of you. It's why all of Takeda's students looked so different. It's why Ueshiba's students looked so different.

Dan Austin wrote: I've seen you espouse the "you fight like you train" idea, which I agree with, so I'm still confused as to why you wouldn't train an MMA technique internally instead of a sankyo internally. The only thing I can come up with is that if you train in an Aikido school I suppose you really don't have much choice. Other than that I'm at a loss as to how "train internally" + "you fight how you train" leads to training something that you still won't deal with in a fight internally or otherwise. How you do sankyo has no bearing on how likely sankyo is to be on the menu against serious opposition. It's still a low-percenter. Restoring internal skills to Aikido sounds great, but there is still technique and training to be updated.

It still sounds like to me, you're viewing sankyo as some "technique" that you'd use against some opponent. I might be wrong, but it just sounds that way.

Throw "technique" out the window. Forget that sankyo is a "technique". Go under the assumption that you will never use sankyo on some opponent.

Now, go back to training aikido. You're working on twisting the wrist inwards toward uke -- defined as what people call sankyo. Now, you want to control uke, but with the arm extended and loose, it's hard to get uke's body to move. The arm just wiggles. So, you take the slack out of that arm. In this case, you twist it inwards into what people describe as sankyo. Then, you find that with no slack, you can move uke's body in an easier manner. You can actually effect their center and the connection between the two of you is more pronounced.

At a beginner's level, the pain compliance works more to move uke than the center-to-center connection. As you work on this more, you get less pain but better control. As you progress, the amount of twisting to take out slack becomes less as a center-to-center connection becomes stronger.

Why "sankyo"? Because aikido came from Daito ryu and Daito ryu had this technique (well, had quite a lot of sankyos from what I'm told). Ueshiba sort of pared down the Daito ryu syllabus.

But, in the end, the training isn't about getting some sankyo technique on an opponent at all. It's about using a training paradigm to work on disrupting an opponent's center by a point of contact at the wrist.

Just to throw another wrench into the mix ... the training for uke in sankyo is to use the suit and ground to negate tori's attempt at any pain compliance or center-to-center connection.

Alex Lawrence wrote: Amazing. The test of our martial art is getting attacked by a boxer/kick boxer/mmaer. When was the last time that ever happened? How "real" is that?

Hi Alex,

That's not the point being made here. The question to ask is, what is the point of training to a low standard, of assuming your opponent is a complete flounder? It's like playing chess against 3rd graders and thinking of yourself as a chess master. To be objectively good you have to CHALLENGE yourself, and that means imagining a dangerous, crafty opponent instead of an easy one. Why train to beat someone you could probably already beat without training? It makes more sense to learn to handle the difficult cases since the lesser cases will be relatively easy, than to train easy cases and either imagine you can do it or assume it will never happen.

This thread was started by someone who didn't know he was training for the easy, unrealistic case and got a rude awakening.

If this is correct, then the overwhelming majority of Aikido people doing sankyo are just doing a lock, basically, and completely missing the boat. Is that a fair interpretation?

No, I don't think it is. Like any martial art, there are the majority of people who train in it for some time because they find it fun or interesting, and maybe they feel they'll get a little self defence out of it. I'll bet the average BJJ/MT/karate/whatever dojo sees a good share of these folks too. I wouldn't call them representative of the art though.

Beyond that, there are plenty of people at various levels of the art doing various levels of sankyo. Some depend more on pain compliance, some less. Beyond that there are others who are very good at using sankyo. Beyond that there may be some who can use it in an adversarial situation...and maybe some of all of these groups can at some point depending on who they are facing. Who knows...complete hypothetical, so why waste time on it?

That break down of the "user group" is probably going to be different than a competitive art...which does not invalidate the training as long as everyone is honest about it.

However for those who are working on the original core body skill or whatever you want to call it, it could be done by training sankyo or anything else, and the Dan Hardens of the world don't seem to have anything to do with sankyo.

Dan Hardin, while showing me what he does, went through pretty much all of the major aikido waza showing me how what he does can apply to it. He is also quite familiar with the Hiden Mokuroku of Daito ryu, so your statement is incorrect.

He does prefer for his own purposes to train in a more MMA environment. But his preferences in no way invalidate someone elses's.

The bottom line is this...The original poster can continue to train in aikido, get used to other environments and techniques, and discover where they can use aikido in those areas and where they can't, and then train to improve what he does. That does not necessitate leaving aikido.

It does necessitate being honest with himself, and at some time if he teaches, with his students.

As to whether or not sankyo works, it works fine with me, as do other waza in the right situation, even when I have "rolled" with people with a background in MMA/BJJ. Sometimes I get tapped, sometimes I tap them. Often they are quite surprised by the outcome, even when I do get tapped. No biggie...it doesn't mean MMA sucks. I'm surprised an experienced person such as yourself would think otherwise.

Best,
Ron

Dan Austin wrote: Hi Alex, That's not the point being made here. The question to ask is, what is the point of training to a low standard, of assuming your opponent is a complete flounder? It's like playing chess against 3rd graders and thinking of yourself as a chess master. To be objectively good you have to CHALLENGE yourself, and that means imagining a dangerous, crafty opponent instead of an easy one. Why train to beat someone you could probably already beat without training? It makes more sense to learn to handle the difficult cases since the lesser cases will be relatively easy, than to train easy cases and either imagine you can do it or assume it will never happen. This thread was started by someone who didn't know he was training for the easy, unrealistic case and got a rude awakening.

Actually I'd argue it was started by a person training for one strategy who then tested it out against another.

See you've started anassumption that anyone who isn't trained is easy to defeat because of the higher technical skill of the fighter.
I'm just pointing out that attackers have more strategic freedom on the street than fighters do in the ring and infact they can and do use that strategic freedom to negate any advantage the MMAer supposedly has.

The second point of my argument is that Aikido is strategically set up to counter most mugging strategies because of it's emphasis on movement.

So my ultimate point is ok, under fixed strategic conditions Aikido looses to MMA but that proves nothing about Aikido's or MMA's effectiveness in the real world and it may be that Aikido actually serves you better in the real world than MMA does.

This thread has taken some interesting turns, since I posted. Seems that the argument has been put forth that MMA (however you define that) is "better" than aikido. I guess I would have to agree that any cross training is good. Also, it seems that a corollary argument is lurking just underneath that perhaps aikido needs to change to become relevant as a martial art. I'm not sure I'd exactly agree with that but perhaps that sensei's need to make sure what it is that they are selling.

I was watching this program last night on the military channel, Top Army Fighters, and it was basically army guys from around the country who had advanced in a competition of MMA/Army Combatives. It was basically like watching Ultimate Fighter in camo shorts (no slight intended - just tryiing to give you a flavor of what the competition was).

I think I recall Kevin L. in another thread, or perhaps it was reading I was doing that the Army's logic in its Combatives program was less about creating a bunch of martial artists who could defeat anyone anywhere in hand-to-hand, and more about instilling the warrior ethos. This because the reality of most of modern combat is not hand-to-hand (although you do want proficiency in it).

(Kevin please elaborate or correct if I have mispoken)

Well anyway, I have to wonder if in combat situation if a soldier would want to get in a ground position and tussle around? Comments from police officers on this board and in our school would say that for them at least, the ground is the last place they try and be unless they are cuffing. Seems to me that the same might apply to a soldier. However, I do agree that a knowledge of how to apply technique on the ground is useful.

So, back to the show. I saw several instances where while in a clinch one or the other combatant could have for instance applied a FORM of kote gaeshi. Might not have been kihon, but it was there if only for seconds.

Now would something like be allowed in competition? This particular competition had rules that were in excess of what you even see on UFC because some of they participants were deploying within days.

My point is that we don't have definitive data, (nor are we likely to get it) of how aikido fares against MMA in an all out, arm breaking, choking, punching circumstance, because competition (which is all we see) doesn't allow that for obvious reasons.

I don't disagree with the fact that there are schools that teach martially ineffective aikido. What I do disagree with is the implied (or did I infer) thought that all aikido is martially ineffective.

Mark Murray wrote: And I didn't say that for everyone it was 50/50. Just that it has been my experience.

That's why I prefer objective analysis over subjective experience. And if some people from a dojo seeing Mike Sigman twice makes the dojo promising, then it sounds like seeing Mr. Sigman is a lot more worthwhile than going to these dojos.

It still sounds like to me, you're viewing sankyo as some "technique" that you'd use against some opponent. I might be wrong, but it just sounds that way.

I think we're talking past each other at this point. I understand what you're saying about it being a training device, but it's also a "technique". If I can train sankyo, or the underhook scenario shown in the SBGi clip earlier in the thread, and do them both internally, then I clearly choose the latter because it's more likely to be useful in addition to being an internal training opportunity. That's what I'm getting at.

Alex Lawrence wrote: Actually I'd argue it was started by a person training for one strategy who then tested it out against another. See you've started anassumption that anyone who isn't trained is easy to defeat because of the higher technical skill of the fighter.

No, I didn't say easy, I said easier.

'm just pointing out that attackers have more strategic freedom on the street than fighters do in the ring and infact they can and do use that strategic freedom to negate any advantage the MMAer supposedly has.

I've already discussed this at length in this thread. MMA is a sport. However it is possible to take the lessons of that sport and apply it to street self-defence. Maybe if I call it an "evidence-based modern hybrid approach to self-defence utilizing lessons learned from sport competition" that would be clearer, though it's easier to write MMA. I'm talking essentially about cross-training MMA with an eye toward self-defence (which many Aikidoka in this thread do) just without the Aikido.

The second point of my argument is that Aikido is strategically set up to counter most mugging strategies because of it's emphasis on movement.

I can't spend time to rehash things I've already said in this thread, see post #62 and the link to the boxer in the street fight with multiple attackers. Using any kind of Aikido in that scenario would have lessened his chances of such a favorable outcome by risking getting entangled in standing grappling.

So my ultimate point is ok, under fixed strategic conditions Aikido looses to MMA but that proves nothing about Aikido's or MMA's effectiveness in the real world and it may be that Aikido actually serves you better in the real world than MMA does.

For MMA (hybrid modern techniques tested against full resistance) we have ample evidence that the techniques and training methods work under serious pressure. We have no such evidence for Aikido, nor is it reasonable to think that cooperative training can lead to the same skills. We also see that boxing punches are too fast and dangerous to allow a serious chance of manipulating the opponent's arms as many Aikido techniques do. Odds are low that your proposition is correct, so there would need to be some compelling evidence to think there is equivalence.

To look at it from another direction, name an attack that Aikido can handle, that a modern hybrid approach can't handle more reliably and with far less training time invested.

A while back, I let some BJJ dude (who taught BJJ) try to take me to the ground for about 2 hours in vain. I tried my aikido against Dan Harden's MMA and it was like I was a 3 year old trying to deal with a full grown professional fighter (who was desperately trying not to hurt me).

So my opinion of MMA and aikido has changed recently. But what was powering the MMA and the aikido is what's important to me. Getting my body in shape to do it has been an interesting journey as well. I started forrest yoga and have since found AIS (active isolated stretching) and I'm now doing a combination of these things. I'm looking for the most efficient usage of time to achieve my goals. I do this by finding the best experts and doing as much research as I can while I continue to learn. I'm fairly certain that is the only way I'll be able to make the progress I want to make without having to quit my day job.

I want fast-proficiency aikido. I think it requires a working knowledge of MMA trained by people who have actually had real fights (not in a ring). I know not everyone will agree with me. But I feel the OP probably wanted to know what other people in aikido are doing towards the originally stated issues.

Rob

Don wrote:

This thread has taken some interesting turns, since I posted. Seems that the argument has been put forth that MMA (however you define that) is "better" than aikido. I guess I would have to agree that any cross training is good. Also, it seems that a corollary argument is lurking just underneath that perhaps aikido needs to change to become relevant as a martial art. I'm not sure I'd exactly agree with that but perhaps that sensei's need to make sure what it is that they are selling.

Better in what way? Better at somethings, not all. There must be a reason that some of us choose to still study aikido that are fairly committed to MMA/BJJ as a way of life.

Cross training is good I think.

No, I don't think aikido needs to change. Aikidoka need to change if the shoe fits. Leave the "way" alone....it was designed with specific purposes in mind, I think it works quite well in those areas.

Dan wrote:

I was watching this program last night on the military channel, Top Army Fighters, and it was basically army guys from around the country who had advanced in a competition of MMA/Army Combatives. It was basically like watching Ultimate Fighter in camo shorts (no slight intended - just tryiing to give you a flavor of what the competition was).

Small world, Ben Bradley, one of the fighters on that show, is the guy that "showed me the light", and led me into the world of MMA. He and I ran the Combatives program at our post in Germany for two years.

Dan wrote:

I think I recall Kevin L. in another thread, or perhaps it was reading I was doing that the Army's logic in its Combatives program was less about creating a bunch of martial artists who could defeat anyone anywhere in hand-to-hand, and more about instilling the warrior ethos. This because the reality of most of modern combat is not hand-to-hand (although you do want proficiency in it).

Fairly correct. It is about a couple of things, but I think primarily it is about building warriors....or ethos. Skill is also important, but less so, certainly NOT a by product by any means though.

Dan Wrote:

Well anyway, I have to wonder if in combat situation if a soldier would want to get in a ground position and tussle around? Comments from police officers on this board and in our school would say that for them at least, the ground is the last place they try and be unless they are cuffing. Seems to me that the same might apply to a soldier. However, I do agree that a knowledge of how to apply technique on the ground is useful.

No soldiers don't want to get on the ground. It would be a little long for me to go into the logic here, but it is not a choice you make, (to go to the ground)...it is one that is made for you without your consent or control. One of the criticisms I have about non-grappling arts is that there is an assumed paradigm that fights always start from hamni or fighitng stance....most do not, they start with you in a position of disadvantage, so why not start training from that point of failure??? Makes sense once you really think about it, doesn't it?

The issue I think is Sensei that have invested alot of time in "stand up", AND they have no clue how to train this range the correct way, so they dismiss it either intentionally, out of fear or irgnorance...or they are simply training budo and it is not a primary purpose of the art, which I think is fine...and what you see in arts like aikido. Nothing wrong with that, but aikidoka (students) extrapolate and try and turn it into something else.

Dan Wrote:

So, back to the show. I saw several instances where while in a clinch one or the other combatant could have for instance applied a FORM of kote gaeshi. Might not have been kihon, but it was there if only for seconds.

Get with a good grappler that understands alot...Bottom line, you won't get it. Occassionally you may...but in competition you won't. Interject weapons or the "unknown" factor of weapons..your chances go way up. On the street against non-skilled, semi skilled opponents...again, chances go up. So Kotegaeshi is good to know...AND good to know how to do it correctly.

Dan Wrote:

Now would something like be allowed in competition? This particular competition had rules that were in excess of what you even see on UFC because some of they participants were deploying within days.

You can use kotegaeshi in Army Combatives rules, absolutely...wrtist locks are allowed. Good luck getting them! Only restriction is single digits.

Dan Wrote:

My point is that we don't have definitive data, (nor are we likely to get it) of how aikido fares against MMA in an all out, arm breaking, choking, punching circumstance, because competition (which is all we see) doesn't allow that for obvious reasons.

Nor will you ever have it. I am an aikidoka, and was first and foremost before starting my MMA/Combatives training. My skills from aikido allowed me to move more rapidily up through the system in BJJ/MMA/MACP, AND....that training helped by aikido training. However, two different training methodologies with different training objectives in mind. I train some days both in MACP/BJJ and AIkido....I never am confused as to where I am and what I am doing in each dojo!

That said, to be honest, I don't ever really change much in my responses, nor limit myself to the options from both methodolgies...I simply do the same things and respond appropriately based on what is being offered to me. Difference is timing, speed for the most part...range/distance somewhat, as well as degree of aliveness...but over all not much difference.

There are correalations to clinching and irimi/tenkan and/or irimi nage, for example. I do them both the same way...again timing speed dictates what options you have available at that range.

Rob Liberti wrote: A while back, I let some BJJ dude (who taught BJJ) try to take me to the ground for about 2 hours in vain. I tried my aikido against Dan Harden's MMA and it was like I was a 3 year old trying to deal with a full grown professional fighter (who was desperately trying not to hurt me). So my opinion of MMA and aikido has changed recently. But what was powering the MMA and the aikido is what's important to me. Getting my body in shape to do it has been an interesting journey as well. I started forrest yoga and have since found AIS (active isolated stretching) and I'm now doing a combination of these things. I'm looking for the most efficient usage of time to achieve my goals. I do this by finding the best experts and doing as much research as I can while I continue to learn. I'm fairly certain that is the only way I'll be able to make the progress I want to make without having to quit my day job. I want fast-proficiency aikido. I think it requires a working knowledge of MMA trained by people who have actually had real fights (not in a ring). I know not everyone will agree with me. But I feel the OP probably wanted to know what other people in aikido are doing towards the originally stated issues. Rob

Rob,

No problem with any of that (although that BJJ sounds lame - not that BJJ trains takedowns much though, that's wrestling's specialty), and I think the OP has probably gotten a lot more than he expected.

From your descriptions I'm beginning to think Dan must have a dad named Jor-El somewhere.

Rob,

A while back, I let some BJJ dude (who taught BJJ) try to take me to the ground for about 2 hours in vain. I tried my aikido against Dan Harden's MMA and it was like I was a 3 year old trying to deal with a full grown professional fighter (who was desperately trying not to hurt me).

Good points, but I'd caution people to be careful about dismissing BJJ or thinking you have developed something special simply because a good BJJ guy can't take you to the ground. Frankly, I could do this pretty much day one when I first linked up with Ben Bradley.

If you are not "playing the game" and are only avoiding being taken down...then the average aikidoka with a modicum of skill can avoid a takedown. It only requires you staying out of range, and manuevering around. Now, close down the room tightly, put up some walls and what not...and it might be different.

That said, sure, there are many BJJers that train for the game and are not going to be able to take you down if this is all that is trying to be avoided...BJJ is about engaging the fight...not avoiding it.

So, actually it is a good point though to consider that we don't have to actually play the same game that they play.

I do this many times in BJJ...I will play a game of going to the ground and seeing how many times I can disengage and get back to my feet in say a 5 minute period. Many BJJ guys don't practice this way, so they will leave themselves open for you to escape.

I think this is a good way to train and mix in your aikido training paradigm, put yourself at a disadvantage, then see if you can re-create space and escape.

BJJ is typically about creating space and turning the tables and taking the fight back in to your opponent to soundly defeat him...however it is not the only way to train as Rob points out!

All BJJ dojos I have trained in practice takedowns quite a bit. In fact in tournaments most matches are won by the iniative gained by the takedown...so they are very important. True though, the ground game is practiced most of the time.

I specialize my bjj in takedowns. Which is why I'm almost ready for my black belt in judo. Fast takedown, lots of ride time and waiting for submissions. That's how I try to play my game. To be honest, I have not met anyone without prior wrestling, judo, or competitive experience who can stop my takedowns. That is of course assuming they want to engage. If they did not want to fight, why would I be chasing them down trying to take them down? I wouldn't chase someone down in the real world who didn't want to fight. I'm sure as hell not going to do it in the fake world either. However, as you stated, if they want a match and are playing that game. I find I can usually use my half ass ring control to corner them.

I'd like to point out I'm not anywhere near the mythical levels of skill reported on this forum. I am also not even close to the level of skill a purple belt in bjj or a black belt in judo (I'm almost there though damn it) will have. I'd classify myself as a below average martial artist. I am not strong, I am not fast, my cardio is not all that great, my technique could use a lot of work. I can only imagine what I could do if I had the physical attributes and time of some of our competitive mma fighters in the gym. I 'know' a lot more then they do, they simple use what they know better.

But what do I know. I haven't even been to an aikido class in over a month. I haven't trained in aikido in at least 3 months.

I think you know a lot Don M. And your contributions are always welcome. I think there is a lot to think about here.
Best,
Ron

Dan Austin wrote: That's why I prefer objective analysis over subjective experience. And if some people from a dojo seeing Mike Sigman twice makes the dojo promising, then it sounds like seeing Mr. Sigman is a lot more worthwhile than going to these dojos.

What makes the Itten dojo promising (hell more than that) is a number of things, even before Mike Sigman walked in the door there.

a) Their instructor has a long background in karate and aiki jujutsu (people might quibble about the source of the AJ, I did myself at one point...but I've felt his waza, and it is strong).

b) They have both classical and modern training with legitimate instructors in a wide variety of empty hand and weapons based arts.

c) They allow input from BJJ/Grappling sources, and even have kata based on modern ground work.

d) One of their primary aikido influences is Ellis Amdur, who trained with Kuroiwa Sensei, an ex-boxer whose waza is often based off of boxing strikes.

e) Atemi is part and parcel of their aikido waza. They are as likely to hit you three times (hard) then throw as anything else. And they train for that.

d) They've got some tough SOBs who train there.

That is what makes that dojo unusual. I often find it amazing how quick we are to put down groups we've never trained with. Me too...I've done this as well in the past...but I'm learning better.

Best,
Ron (sometimes I've been personally schooled better...)

I have learned more in the past couple of years than I have in all my years prior. I think it is all out there, you just have to open your mind and look around. One thing I have come to realize, much like you Ron is that there is alot of talent out there if you can get past the parochialism and "this is the way we do it" mentality, and simply "let go"

Dont get so down about having to use atemi in your Aikido. Atemi is a integral part of the execution of Aikido. Didn't O'Sensei say to use atemi before, during, and after a technique?

-rei,
morgan

Here's something else that I think is salient . . . people talk about doing atemi, ki/kokyu skills, grappling, mma style training . . . to me - talking about what you do doesn't matter a whole lot. I can take any technique or "concept" and set it up to make it look like I know what I'm talking about. The key is in "how" you train it, do it and practice it. And you will never find that out on a message board. At best, you might get some interest in finding out what someone does in person . . . and sometimes that can lead to disappointment on a number of levels. Other times, it can radically change how you think about budo and train.

But "what" you say you are doing doesn't always relate to "how" you are actually doing it.

Agreed Budd. What I was referring to was what I had actually seen and experienced at Itten dojo. So for me, it wasn't just talk, or a rumor of some dojo some where that has The Stuff (TM).

I get a little tired sometimes of people saying that all aikido dojo are full of fluffy bunnies...it just ain't so.

Best,
Ron

Ron, I think I know what you meant. I also think this goes back to another conversation we were having regarding the web as a means to get interest to meet people in person. I think at Itten we don't talk in too much detail about what we're doing, because as Wolfe Sensei has mentioned elsewhere, we're just NEVER satisfied So some things are always in flux. But it's nice to have good people like you stop by when you are able.

I'm speaking more in generalities/terms, even such as "atemi" -- it means so many things to different people, don't even get me started on "ki", etc. . . I always enjoy reading your writeups of where you've been, with whom you've trained, etc. and think you do a good job explaining the meaning of your terms..

On the other hand, I have no problem letting people assume I'm a fluffy aikido bunny.