Military Training Methodologies

Mike Sigman wrote: Using your reasoning, I could also say that "if Internal Power was any good, boxers would have used it for generations because there's world fame and potentially millons of dollars riding on their success."

You could put your hands in Bob Fitzsimmons 1901 book "Physical Culture And Self Defense". Some interesting quigong there.

Mark Jakabcsin wrote: Years ago I read a great article about how pugulism changed through the past 100 years as the rules changed. I kick myself for not saving the article as it was outstanding. At the turn of the last century boxers stood very erect and stiff because it was within the rules to hook them behind the head and rabbit punch them.

You beat me to it, although I was thinking of this point as an example. As stated I've been a BJJ/MMA fan for a long time, so I'm the last guy to point out the difference between MMA and "da street" because those arguments are typically made by guys who excuse their style's lack of effectiveness by claiming to be too deadly for the ring. But there are a couple of points to make. First, even in MMA the pendulum has swung to favor those who are better on the feet, because knowledge of takedown defense has increased to the point where it's common to see the better striker stuff takedowns and force the fight to stay standing. People like BJ Penn have such a reputation for takedown defense that some guys barely try to take him down anymore.

And yes, there are safety rules that do change the game. Probably the most significant is that strikes to the back of the head, neck, and spine are illegal. Imagine how much faster many MMA fights would be over if instead of snapping someone's head down into a guillotine attempt, fighters were allowed to chop them in the back of the neck? Guy turtled up, making it hard for you to get your hooks in and choke him? No problem, a nice palm smash or hammer fist to the base of the skull should win immediately or else make slipping the choke in easy. The Fight Quest Kajukenbo episode has a nice example of the effect of a downward elbow to the spine at about the 1:30 mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg8KRFAXPYQ

Ouch. It's an interesting example of what being motor-set for the MMA game can do. Kajukenbo looks similar to MMA but trains for a street environment. The MMA guy reflexively went for a leg takedown, assuming that being sprawled on isn't that bad, and got a surprise. If the head/neck/spine attacks were legal in MMA, people would be very uncomfortable to go for leg takedowns or do anything where you lean your head forward or lower it.

In the evolution of traditional martial arts it wouldn't have taken very long to figure out that chopping people in the back of the neck works great. MMA modifies Western boxing by omitting the bob and weave for the reason that you might get snapped down and take a knee to the face, get caught in a guillotine, etc. but for similar reasons traditional styles evolved to have an upright posture. If you look at Akuzawa's bio, his initial encounter with the koryu guy was because of the guy's observation that his posture was not good, and sure enough when Akuzawa attacked him he essentially got snapped down due to his poor posture. The Aunkai system obviously has an emphasis on a vertical spine, and I'm guessing awareness of the opponent's relative spine posture. I believe Taiji does as well, though Mike can correct me here. In any case if there are mechanics that improve your takedown defense (which can also be done with a vertical spine, the sprawl is not the only method seen in high level wrestling) and improve your short range hitting ability, then it's a no-brainer to see where they can be used, and why they exist in the first place.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: IHowever, MMA is closer to reality than boxing. MMA can be a good way to develop good fighting skills that are applicable...as long as you keep in mind that there are rules, and train with that in perspective. One thing that always concerns me on the whole "MMA has rules" argument is that people use it as an excuse to avoid training that way...for the wrong reasons!

Please Kevin, do not lump me in with previous discussions. If you find a flaw in my logic then point it out directly and do not dance around the subject. MMA is a good proving ground....given it's context but NONE of that negates any of the points in my previous post. If you disagree please be specific.

Example: When I have worked with local LEO I occassionally come across the MMA trained guy that wants do 'go to the ground', 'mount the bad guy', etc. I say fine. I ask the individual to mount, grab control my assitant however he wants. I say go ahead make him comply. Once he is set in place and choking, hitting, crushing, whatever, I look at the other LEO's and say, "Shit look at what this PIG is doing to our gang buddy Jason (my assistant), we cannot let this happen!!" And I start to kick the Cop with medium pressure and encourage the others to do the same! Generally it only takes 2 or 3 encouragements to get them to kick....much harder than me and since many of them are in gear....well you understand the boots. All the sudden the great MMA tactic seems rather foolish! Great for one on one but not so good outside the ring. I have heard enough stories from LEOs and others to understand this is a real possibilty. Perhaps your milage is different.

FYI, for the record, I grew up doing competitive judo and love a good grappling competition. Lots to be learned, lots to be gained. As for MMA compared to boxing rules, they both have limitations but you would not find me mounting or going into the guard outside the ring.....unless I was emplying a weapon...quickly.

Take care,

Mark J.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Sort of reminds me of my racing days. I used to race a 1988 BMW M3 with about 215 HP. I raced a impala SS back around 1998. It must have been putting out close to 350 HP. lots of power, lots of torque...but what could it do with it on the track? It depended on the track (situation). On a road racing circuit it was just too heavy and unbalanced to work the track. My little M3 simply out manuevered it in the corners, breaking, etc. I also simply raced better than the guy driving the impala.

That is a good point, Kevin. I think you'd have won in either car because your driving technique was better. The most powerful athlete is the one who can exert their strength the most quickly, and with the proper timing.

And I find you to be highly credible, by the way, because you are actually rolling to test your methods. So can you say IMA has won you any fights?

Bill wrote:

I'd like to hear some examples of people who have used internal power to win fights. Don't try to convince me I'm wrong. Convince me you're right!

I think your barking up the wrong tree.

I will debate realitive value of this training all day long wrt other methodologies. however to form an attachment to "internal power" as technique to be applied in a fight?

Mike and everyone else is very clear that this is not a style, or method for fighting...it is simply exercises and methodology for conditioning and development.

You don't use the training methods to fight!

Again, my friend Steve Van Fleet beats me up whenever I get with him. He tells me that there is value in yoga. I bet if I got him together with Mike or Ark that he'd find value in what they do as well.

I will tell you that Steve feels much the same in many respects as Mike and Ark do, albeit probably not as developed in this area. Hard to tell since we work on different things.

Steve told me point blank...you aren't getting any better until you develop and condition yourself in this way "yoga".

Mike says same things, in his way and methods.

Ark says the same thing in his way and methods.

My BJJ teacher...guess what...he says the same things.

All have one common thread and it centers around developing the core and the ability to move in new ways.

All invovle core development and conditioning with exercises that pretty much look the same between Steve, Mike, Ark, and my BJJ instructors.

None mentioned that I needed to learn more techniques or spend more time rolling btw.

Sorry Mark,

No real issues with what you posted. Just pointing out the fact that many use that logic for avoiding studying MMA stuff.

The points you make in your last point are good ones to consider for sure. Ones I always try to drive home when teaching the mo
unt as well.

Problem you run into is guys that have not clue about how to train the mount will use this very logic for dismissing it's training value with the wave of the hand.

In reality I would not commit to the mount in the situaiton that you describe. Once guys learn the mount and how to stabilize it and balance, I like to teach them knee on belly or knee on back as it is more mobile and allows you to keep "feel" on the guy on the ground.

More importantly in training the mount, is for the guy on the bottom.

There are good reasons for studying grappling even if you never plan to use it.

The problem with most RBSD stuff is that they eliminate whole areas of training because "I'd never do that in reality" so lets not waste our time with it.

Mark Jakabcsin wrote: Example: When I have worked with local LEO I occassionally come across the MMA trained guy that wants do 'go to the ground', 'mount the bad guy', etc. I say fine. I ask the individual to mount, grab control my assitant however he wants. I say go ahead make him comply. Once he is set in place and choking, hitting, crushing, whatever, I look at the other LEO's and say, "Shit look at what this PIG is doing to our gang buddy Jason (my assistant), we cannot let this happen!!" And I start to kick the Cop with medium pressure and encourage the others to do the same! Generally it only takes 2 or 3 encouragements to get them to kick....much harder than me and since many of them are in gear....well you understand the boots. All the sudden the great MMA tactic seems rather foolish! Great for one on one but not so good outside the ring. I have heard enough stories from LEOs and others to understand this is a real possibilty. Perhaps your milage is different. .

Well, that was fun, but probably we should get back to the subject of the thread.

So MMA is closer to, but not reality. Wouldn't it be great if they had 2 on 2 UFC fights? That would clear up the BJJ problem, wouldn't it?

I am thinking that the difference in tactics between competitive and real fighting/combat is that in reality, it's crucial to win as quickly and decisively as possible. Too many bad things can happen if you drag it out even seconds longer than you need to.

Krav Maga instructors have that saying about when you go to ground you never get up again. That's why I was so surprized to see the Army combatants training in very BJJ methods. We fall back on our habits under stress, so are they really training that way or is it just happening in those single/single matches?

Kevin Leavitt wrote: I think your barking up the wrong tree....Mike and everyone else is very clear that this is not a style, or method for fighting...it is simply exercises and methodology for conditioning and development. You don't use the training methods to fight! Again, my friend Steve Van Fleet beats me up whenever I get with him. He tells me that there is value in yoga.

Yes, my understanding was correct but I did misspeak there. I meant can anyone say it's helped them win fights? Super punches they demolished someone with, etc.

I am surrounded by yoga practitioners in my life. My wife and several of my friends are Kripalu Yoga instructors and both the seventh Dan Aikido instructors above our dojo also practice. Mainly they tout it's restorative power to heal from martial arts training but they do talk about breath power a lot.

It must seem very strange for you guys to hear all this disbelief coming from someone who has all these esoteric factors in their life. I want to believe in ghosts too, but until I see one I just can't!

Bill Danosky wrote: Luckily, I happened to land at a Yoshinkan dojo that's highly martial and have the pleasure of practicing with some very convincing Shodans and Shihans. So I can say, the hard throws of Yoshinkan work. When we practice, we go along with them (like everybody says) but at our dojo the throw is happening regardless and if you take the ukemi right you don't get injured.

You can say what you like, but in all probability your "very convincing" Yoshinkan would be very worthless in the UFC. So if you were looking for internal power, and respect MMA, why not study MMA, and look to incorporate internal power? Your current training seems to meet neither of your goals (internal power and effectiveness).

I've trained for some years in a number of MA and it's my studied opinion that power is found in perfected technique. Nothing else.

Well that's provable false, because if you do powerlifting everything you do will be more powerful. Power can be related to technique, but is also separately trainable. As is internal power, apparently.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: More importantly in training the mount, is for the guy on the bottom. There are good reasons for studying grappling even if you never plan to use it. The problem with most RBSD stuff is that they eliminate whole areas of training because "I'd never do that in reality" so lets not waste our time with it.

Kevin,
While your whole post is very good I want to point out these three points specifically.

Practice being the guy mounted is very important. The emotional effects of being mounted (please hold the sarcastic comments....although funny ones) is very important training. We train slowly by having the guy on the bottom simply getting beat about the face, head, throat from the guy on top. Feel some degree of comfort in this situation and it become much easier to escape. Obviously there is more to it than that but too much for words on a post.

Your second point is spot on. I was training a few months ago with some guys from an art that will remain nameless and when it became an issue of some ground survival they simply said no, we are trained to not go to the ground we do not need that training. Yeah, like they haven't seen UFC in the early days! Yeah like in a multiple attacker scenario you actually have a choice.

One thing I will say about most ground grappling taught today is it focuses on the one-on-one and not multiple attacker, bad situations. Go back to the cop on the ground getting stomped buy multiples I described above. How does he survive? I have had several say during training they will simply pull their gun and shoot. I love that response. We put it to the test! Kick the down officer in the face, hand, groin, solar plexus, etc., as he tries to pull and deploy his firearm. It does not take many attackers to make this difficult if not impossible. Learning and training to do this act (deploying a firearm under severe conditions) has little or nothing to do with MMA training. Try it. Although as an Officer I suggest you use enlisted guys from another unit for a more valid test. I also suggestion learning how to simply survive being stomped while on the ground by multiple attackers. Forget the gun, you may not have it, learn how to move and survive. Good fun.

As for the last point of yours above I agree and forget what I intended to write. Wine, vodka and the late hour are making me sign off for now.

Enjoy.

Mark J.

Dan Austin wrote: You can say what you like, but in all probability your "very convincing" Yoshinkan would be very worthless in the UFC. So if you were looking for internal power, and respect MMA, why not study MMA, and look to incorporate internal power? Your current training seems to meet neither of your goals (internal power and effectiveness)..

Probably. Throwing people on a trampoline is not very damaging and I don't really want to break anyone's arms. I'm open to suggestions. What martial art do you practice?

Hi Bill, how well I know how you feel! I've gone from worse to better Aikido dojos too over the years, and of course, each time I was at a better one than the one before, I was happy and felt lucky that finally I was getting one up on what I had before.

There were some disappointments along the way, partly when myths were dismissed, other times when I knew something wasn't what it was made out to be. But all in all, it has been a road leading to better training possibilities *for myself* all the time.

I also came to the conclusion that at the end of the day no-one but me is responsible for my training and my achievements. This is quite a radical difference to supposing that a teacher is going to give me what I need. As Mike has pointed out, you have to be able to extrapolate something interesting that you see to how it can be useful to you in your training (and maybe you have to go back to stage zero to get the benefits). Also, the military guys here are trying to see what good it might be to them in their roles and jobs. They're putting effort into difficult subjects that don't have clear-cut solutions because there is no such thing as a clear-cut scenario.

Can IMA benefit large numbers of people when taught in a shallow manner? Can the individual effort required pay off enough to make it worth the investment, when the job isn't primarily about using the skill in a way that is marketable to the budget givers? Is anyone going to waste there time ti prove to anyone else how something might benefit them unless they have blood or other close bonds?

Given that I now recognize how useless my Aikido is against someone with IMA skills, I am working hard to obtain those skills (which are independent of techniques). Does that invalidate my Aikido background? Yes, to some extent it does. My teacher tells me often that 12+ years of Aikido have been bad for me (for certain things, very bad habits ingrained). However, other things are beneficial. I coudn't last one serious class these days without breakfalling ability (especially as there are no tatami). So while looking for IMA skilled-teachers there is no need to feel bad about having to work with what you have. I reckon it is rather arrogant though to think that a teacher has to prove something to a student, when the student should have the noodles to ascertain that the teacher has a hard-to-find skill that is worth studying intensively.

That last part is probably the main reason why I don't think that general military training is really much of an option here unless the culture of study changes quite a bit. On the other hand, for small specialized and highly-motivated groups, anything goes. As an aside, there is also the issue that one might not want such knowledge and ability to actually be available to people who might abuse it later, its not like a license one can revoke at will :-)

Bill Wrote:

Krav Maga instructors have that saying about when you go to ground you never get up again. That's why I was so surprized to see the Army combatants training in very BJJ methods. We fall back on our habits under stress, so are they really training that way or is it just happening in those single/single matches?

1. MAC-P has a base of BJJ it is not BJJ.
2. You make the assumption that we only train one range of combat in MAC-P, we don't.
3. You make the assumption that BJJ guys don't know how to stand up, most do. If you don't believe it take a K-M buddy to a BJJ dojo and go to it.
4. You make the assumption that you have a certain level of knowledge when distance is closed on you in a tactical situation and you may not.
5. You make the assumption that when you go to the ground that "you might as well give up as you are already dead". (we covered that already).

Mark, see my point of why I brought it up? A whole range of fighting dismissed by a lack of perspective of the ranges of fighitng.

Mark J wrote:

Go back to the cop on the ground getting stomped buy multiples I described above. How does he survive? I have had several say during training they will simply pull their gun and shoot. I love that response. We put it to the test! Kick the down officer in the face, hand, groin, solar plexus, etc., as he tries to pull and deploy his firearm. It does not take many attackers to make this difficult if not impossible. Learning and training to do this act (deploying a firearm under severe conditions) has little or nothing to do with MMA training.

Sure it is semantics...but I think it has everything to do with MMA!

Kit I am sure can add to this from an LEO perspective.

Understanding the clinch is very important IMO. Distance has been closed and you need to keep your balance, protect yourself, your strong side (weapon). MMA training in the clinch gives you a wonderful base to understand this.

Once distance has been closed, it is a grappling match. Sure weapons change things. However, it is about managing the fight to keep the situation from getting any worse, understanding the positions upon when (and when not) to employ your weapon. How to use your body to protect your strong side, gain space, gain position in order to deploy that weapon, and use it (or not).

Even if strikes are involved, it is a grappling match. if it is not a grappling match, then you would have distance and be able to move to create space or to deploy your weapon to keep him from closing distance any further. Standup wise, there is not much difference really. With the exception of knowledge that the attack is coming maybe? That weapons are invovled, that buddies are involved.

We have a saying in MAC-P. The winner of a hand to hand battle is the guy whose buddy shows up first with a weapon.

It keeps things in perspective when you look at it that way.

Keeping that in mind. MMA training from closing the distance, to clinch, to take down, and going through the dominant body positions is excellent training to based weapons retention and DT on.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: You could put your hands in Bob Fitzsimmons 1901 book "Physical Culture And Self Defense". Some interesting quigong there.

Here you go, I found a [free download] for those that just want to look at the book.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Mike and everyone else is very clear that this is not a style, or method for fighting...it is simply exercises and methodology for conditioning and development. You don't use the training methods to fight!

Hi Kevin,

I wanted to stay out of this thread but you finally hit the nail with this. These methods are for building a base/foundation. They grant you efficient movement and additional power among other things when trained enough.

This base can then be taken and and applied to fighting, yard work, carrying groceries, exercise, and on and on. It takes a lot of time acquire and ingrain this base because it truly is a new (different) way on controlling the body and how forces effect it. However, there are a few shortcuts, meaning not quite pure methods, that mix muscle use and jin/kokyu. These methods can instill some base skills though ability won't be as clean as it could be and in the long term it keeps you from reaching higher levels IMO.

The problem with this thread (besides the understanding of internal skills as a base for body control) is people need to realize that in the U.S. of the people who have internal skills the vast majority are still working on the base/foundation and only a limited few have even begun to build fighting skills onto this base (from what I understand).

Best,
Tim Anderson

(If anyone wants to discuss the Fitzsimmons book *cough*MikeSigman*cough*, I've started a discussion over at Internal-Aiki.)

Tim Anderson wrote: The problem with this thread (besides the understanding of internal skills as a base for body control) is people need to realize that in the U.S. of the people who have internal skills the vast majority are still working on the base/foundation and only a limited few have even begun to build fighting skills onto this base (from what I understand).

Heh. One of the interesting things I keep my eye on is how very hard it's been for me to get what information I have and it's taken 30 years to accumulate what I have. I know a number of other people who have acquired their own caches of skills over the years. And while a few people a getting some skills, most of the skill levels are still fairly rudimentary and not illustrative of what the big-dogs can do... yet. So I tend to try to shortcut these conversations where someone asks "a representative of IMA to show his stuff against Chuck Liddell". It's a waste of time and misses the point. But I think we're back on point now.

The big worry, as I see it, is that because of various circumstances, conceits, and so on, western Aikido wound up in a situation where there are only few Aikidoists using a few rudimentary internal skills... and that's critical because Aikido is based around internal skills and using the mind to blend one's forces automatically with incoming attack-forces.

So while getting off to this shakey start, I think it's very critical that the conversationing and reasoning be clinical and analytical, avoiding that same tendency to go off into flights of fantasy that has proved so crippling to Aikido's progress in (at least) the West.

But it's a good conversation to have.

FWIW

Mike

Timothy Walters Kleinert wrote: (If anyone wants to discuss the Fitzsimmons book *cough*MikeSigman*cough*, I've started a discussion over at Internal-Aiki.)

No offense, Tim, but there's already a few conversations archived like that on the QiJin forum and there's one going on right now. I.e., it's just very hard to contribute to too many lists on the same subject. I think it's a good discussion to have... don't get me wrong... I just don't want to promise something I can't come through on.

In terms of what he's doing with the breath.... yes, it's part of a basic qigong-type procedure. While it's sort of coarse, it will indeed provide some results. However, there are much better and more sophisticated ways to do power-gungs than the way he's showing. He's very inefficient with that approach.

As I understand it, from years of reading, etc., a lot of the old-timey strongmen had an understanding of how deliberate breath control was an important part of training. I suspect the breath procedures came over from eastern Europe and they in turn got them from the Middle-East, India, China, eastern Russia, etc. I.e., the breath training they used (the example on your site is a good one) is indeed a bona fide offspring of qigongs, pranayama, and so forth. I think it will all make a resurgence.

Best.

Mike

Bill Danosky wrote: Probably. Throwing people on a trampoline is not very damaging and I don't really want to break anyone's arms. I'm open to suggestions. What martial art do you practice?

Well, you've seen my suggestion. Personally I come from a JKD background for the most part, have trained in many things including Aikido (abandoned when I realized cooperative training actually makes you worse, not better or even neutral), and currently I work on MMA with an eye toward self-defense (meaning I consider how things change without rules). And I'm interested in internal power training. Obviously my bias is to suggest something similar, but first come to grips with the conflict of training in Aikido if fighting effectiveness is a priority. That can be difficult for many people.

Mike Sigman wrote: Heh. One of the interesting things I keep my eye on is how very hard it's been for me to get what information I have and it's taken 30 years to accumulate what I have. I know a number of other people who have acquired their own caches of skills over the years. And while a few people a getting some skills, most of the skill levels are still fairly rudimentary and not illustrative of what the big-dogs can do... yet. So I tend to try to shortcut these conversations where someone asks "a representative of IMA to show his stuff against Chuck Liddell". It's a waste of time and misses the point. But I think we're back on point now.

My Bro Rick Metzler... Chuck Liddell's peer in "The Pit" Hawaiian Kempo has a Dojo here in Malibu less than a mile from my house...I'll have to ask him what emphasis John Hackleman and company place on IMA in Kempo. I would not be surprised in the least if they say it's very important.

The big worry, as I see it, is that because of various circumstances, conceits, and so on, western Aikido wound up in a situation where there are only few Aikidoists using a few rudimentary internal skills... and that's critical because Aikido is based around internal skills and using the mind to blend one's forces automatically with incoming attack-forces.

This paragraph requires a detailed explaination..."western" Aikido? What "style" is that??? Who are it's main adherents? How does it differ from "eastern" Aikido???

So while getting off to this shakey start, I think it's very critical that the conversationing and reasoning be clinical and analytical, avoiding that same tendency to go off into flights of fantasy that has proved so crippling to Aikido's progress in (at least) the West. But it's a good conversation to have.

So lets have it shall we...Feel free to start another thread Mike. I would love to hear your experiance, strength, and acumen on the this subject....

Since you brought it up. LOL

WIlliam Hazen

William Hazen wrote: My Bro Rick Metzler... Chuck Liddell's peer in "The Pit" Hawaiian Kempo has a Dojo here in Malibu less than a mile from my house...I'll have to ask him what emphasis John Hackleman and company place on IMA in Kempo. I would not be surprised in the least if they say it's very important.

Yeah, but again we get into this definition issue. I know scads of people in the martial arts and I've seen all sorts of things called "internal martial arts". That's why I keep trying to resolve it to definitions before the conversations start. There's a guy that teaches "Tai Chi" in England, just as one of hundreds of examples, and he has a few breath-power gongs that come from Shaolin... got nothing to do with "internal martial arts" except that he sticks it in a "Tai Chi" choreography. He'd be the first to challenge someone to a fistfight if they said he didn't understand internal martial arts, and so forth. In other words, a lot of people in IMA's (particularly westerners) see IMA as like "Car"... and they don't realize how many different types of "car" there are.

This paragraph requires a detailed explaination..."western" Aikido? What "style" is that??? Who are it's main adherents?

Westerners

How does it differ from "eastern" Aikido???

Please, let's not be trivial. Unless of course you grew up speaking Japanese and with a culture and mindset/values of typical Japanese. And you grew up in a place where keiko-gi's are an understandable derivative of your native culture and words means slightly different to you than they do to most western adepts who speak Japanese. That sort of thing. You think there is no difference between Aikido and the mindset in a normal western dojo and the Aikido in a normal Japanese dojo? I don't.

Mike

Mike Sigman wrote: Yeah, but again we get into this definition issue. I know scads of people in the martial arts and I've seen all sorts of things called "internal martial arts". That's why I keep trying to resolve it to definitions before the conversations start. There's a guy that teaches "Tai Chi" in England, just as one of hundreds of examples, and he has a few breath-power gongs that come from Shaolin... got nothing to do with "internal martial arts" except that he sticks it in a "Tai Chi" choreography. He'd be the first to challenge someone to a fistfight if they said he didn't understand internal martial arts, and so forth. In other words, a lot of people in IMA's (particularly westerners) see IMA as like "Car"... and they don't realize how many different types of "car" there are.

Ok I'll take your word for it. How many types of cars must you know in order to learn how to drive one?

Westerners Please, let's not be trivial.

But I humbly disagree It's you whose being trivial using these generalities to pass of what you can't explain in detail.

Unless of course you grew up speaking Japanese and with a culture and mindset/values of typical Japanese. And you grew up in a place where keiko-gi's are an understandable derivative of your native culture and words means slightly different to you than they do to most western adepts who speak Japanese. That sort of thing. You think there is no difference between Aikido and the mindset in a normal western dojo and the Aikido in a normal Japanese dojo? I don't. Mike

Well that is a general bias expressed by some Westerners with little experiance. In the old days we called it "Asian Fever" You may not know it but you open up a whole can of worms with this Western/Eastern Aiki Duality thing. LOL
I have had experiance with Aikidoka from all over the world and I'll tell you be it Ukrainian, Swedish, Finnish, French, Chinese, Japanese, Brazilian, Austrailian, Cezch, German, West Indian, ect ect...Each has developed thier own flavor it's true but one thing I heard Shoji Nishio say a long time back is how much better most of the Aikido he sees "in the west" is compared to Japan and he's not the only Senior Japanese Yudansha to express this...

If you're commenting abstractly about proper transmission well then that is another subject entirely however I don't think throwing the baby out with the bathwater is that answer to that question.

William Hazen

William Hazen wrote: Ok I'll take your word for it. How many types of cars must you know in order to learn how to drive one?

But you don't just get in and drive one.... you have to build your own car (develop these skills for yourself) in this case. The real question is "what kind of car are you trying to build for yourself" and, in my opinion, before you can do that you have to understand the general principles of how a car works, the different kinds of engines, SUV versus passenger car, and so on. So when someone says "let's go look at this Fort Pinto and try it out against a tank to see if cars are any good"..... well, you get the idea.

But I humbly disagree It's you whose being trivial using these generalities to pass of what you can't explain in detail.

Well, I don't mind if you disagree... that's what discussions are for. Those "trivialities" though, are very valid differences that you should bear in mind, in the important cases. If you mean that there's little difference between low-grade Japanese Aikido and low-grade western Aikido, I heartily agree. But it's not the point that I think you should consider.

About 3 years ago I decided that just to cover my butt before I sat down to write up some stuff on internal strength, I thought I should visit Aikido, some karate, and a couple of other Japanese arts to clarify just how far behind the Japanese really were in those skills. I've mentioned that before. What I found, from a lot of probing (and challenging) conversation is a lot of indicators that I totally misunderstood how much the Japanese knew about this sort of training. So I started looking into it even deeper and this stuff is (or was, in some cases; I see the vestigial exercises, but I don't see any good examples of the skills) and it's pretty stunning how much is there.

One of the side investigations I did was into "kiai", which Ellis got me interested in with his discussions on an early judo book. As a result, I ordered one of Donn Draeger's writings on Kiai from the Hoplology Institute. In that paper (which I can't spot on my bookshelf at the moment) Draeger mentions some stuff about ki and how little the Japanese know about it. How they just sit there with straight faces when there's a visiting Chinese demonstration (which tells you Chinese visit all the time, even when China is "closed"). Further remarks by Draeger indicate that he clearly doesn't know much about the topic. Yet how could that be, if there were a lot of arts that I know have obviously had some unbroken line of transmission? Is it possible that Draeger, nice gaijin that he was, was simply not shown the hidden stuff? Can you imagine that? I.e., don't shrug off the differences between Asian and "western" knowledge of what's in an art or arts.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

good discussion