"Aikido is for wusses": a response?

Roman Kremianski wrote: I'm a bit confused. Are you for or against what I said? I think a lot of people try to ignore MMA because it's their personal fantasy breaker. No one practicing Aikido exclusively likes to admit that they would probably not stand a chance against a knowledgeable well rounded opponent.

There are lots of folks who practice aikido exclusively and they do it with the knowledge that "yeah, maybe I am going to die, but I have to enter and see how things come out."

In gassho

Mark

Roman Kremianski wrote: I'm a bit confused. Are you for or against what I said? The whole point of my post was to argue that MMA is the closest thing on recorded video we have that comes close to a fight. My post was NOT intended to argue that MMA is in fact just a sport that has nothing to do with real fighting. (Like some people on here are claiming) I think a lot of people try to ignore MMA because it's their personal fantasy breaker. No one practicing Aikido exclusively likes to admit that they would probably not stand a chance against a knowledgeable well rounded opponent.

I was agreeing. To people who say "MMA isn't fighting", I was saying, "True, it's very much not. But, the real question should be: is aikido kata practice closer?"

Paul Sanderson-Cimino wrote: I was agreeing. To people who say "MMA isn't fighting", I was saying, "True, it's very much not. But, the real question should be: is aikido kata practice closer?"

Proper kata practice doesn't serve the same purpose as getting in the ring to fight serves. It is supposed to provide an environment where a student can reliably learn proper targeting, distance, and timing, while also learning the consequences of missing any one of those parameters.

This level of purpose is missing in a lot of kata training, hence the very valid criticism's of aliveness brought forth in the youtube clip. It's not hard to see if kata is practiced that way or not once you've been shown how to see it.

MMA bouts are more akin to randori or perhaps shiai, not kata training. FWIW, I've watched plenty of 'kata' training in MMA training sessions; they just call it something different.

Good training should include a mixture of kata and randori. When you're beginning you emphasize one over the other and that balance changes as you learn.

I'll agree with what you seem to be suggesting and say that a lot of aikido practice doesn't do a good job of teaching and enforcing aliveness. It a valid and excellent criticism that I suspect the Founder shared (based on some of his reported comments). Every student should take it to heart and study what they're doing.

Regards,

Mark Uttech wrote: martial arts fantasies aside, aikido is an art, like ikebana or tea ceremony.You work on yourself, and you deal with the enemies within. O Sensei has said that the only way to cover your openings is to stand and acknowledge your fear of death. The late Terry Dobson sensei once taught a seminar with the theme that 'the uke brings your death'. In gassho, Mark

Agreed. All the Budo I have experianced has that exact theme. You must give yourself up in order to really live.

William Hazen

"Aikido is for wusses"

anyone who speaks in absolutes is always missing a part of the picture. there is no such thing as universal truth.

Luc Saroufim wrote: "Aikido is for wusses" anyone who speaks in absolutes is always missing a part of the picture. there is no such thing as universal truth.

Does anybody else see the irony in this statement?

Mike Haftel wrote: Does anybody else see the irony in this statement?

lol...now that you mention it.

Mark Uttech wrote: martial arts fantasies aside, aikido is an art, like ikebana or tea ceremony.You work on yourself, and you deal with the enemies within. O Sensei has said that the only way to cover your openings is to stand and acknowledge your fear of death. The late Terry Dobson sensei once taught a seminar with the theme that 'the uke brings your death'. In gassho, Mark

"Uke brings your death" is the most important piece of writing in Aikido that I have ever read. It was the most important when I read it in it's first printing in 1992 (date approx. but close. You can find it archived in Aikido Today Magazine August 1993) and it is the most important piece to me now.

In American Kenpo (Parker Style) they are emphatic in approach:
If you are training with a knife, for real, you are going to get cut. Both of you. People interested in live blade discussion may want to explore American Kenpo perspectives in addition to any other inquiry.

Tanto is only a fraction of our whole practice and can be reliably viewed as a tool for awakening.

Avi Feygin wrote: .... So i was talking to someone who was interested also in taking aikido and this person taking aikido said aikido is for wusses. Your response? .......

If he thinks that, it's probably just as well that (A) he's not taking it; and (B) he won't be paying your tuition when you start. It's be better if he were supportive, but OTOH, if you want to do it, it doesn't matter if he's going to be a jerk.

"Aikido is for wusses"

Blarg blarg blarg aikido sucks you'll never see it in UFC.

Fine I'll accept that.

I've had to use aikido a few times while in Afghanistan and I was happy with the results.
I also just used it a few weeks ago in a fight against someone with his 4 buddies waiting outside of a bar for me and again I was happy with the results.

I know what I consider 'real life'. I'm happy with aikido working in combat and in a 5 on 1 ambush senario where I didn't have the option of tapping out or a ref, even if it doesn't get a little sponsorship deal on UFC 800 or whatever they are at.

"[quote=Jennifer Smith;177540]"Uke brings your death" is the most important piece of writing in Aikido that I have ever read. It was the most important when I read it in it's first printing in 1992 (date approx. but close. You can find it archived in Aikido Today Magazine August 1993) and it is the most important piece to me now."

The links on that site dont work for me - does anybody have the text, or a link that functions? Jennifer? I'd be very interested.

Nicholas

Yea, can someone put a link up for this article? Or PM us the article?

Sounds link and interesting read...

Grant Wagar wrote: Blarg blarg blarg aikido sucks you'll never see it in UFC. Fine I'll accept that. I've had to use aikido a few times while in Afghanistan and I was happy with the results. I also just used it a few weeks ago in a fight against someone with his 4 buddies waiting outside of a bar for me and again I was happy with the results. I know what I consider 'real life'. I'm happy with aikido working in combat and in a 5 on 1 ambush senario where I didn't have the option of tapping out or a ref, even if it doesn't get a little sponsorship deal on UFC 800 or whatever they are at.

Hello Grant,

Would you might describing the scenario in more detail, and what Aikido techniques you used? I'm always compiling such experiences and think it would certainly be of interest to others as well. Thanks.

i think that you should just blow off the ignorance of others. me and a fellow TKD practicionar(who is my best friend) sit in our 3rd period class, art,(im a junior in highschool) and we talk alot about martial arts in general, not just TKD but i talk about aikido too and we coment upon other martial arts such as karate or kungfu, and one day the kid sitting across from us tried to make it sound like we were being jerks and acting like we could take anyone. he sounded like he thought he could take either of us, and that martial arts was crap that didnt work. well, we werent trying to sound like jerks, and we both just kinda looked at him, like "did you really just say that?" and then he just kinda looked away. he was just ignorant, and i dont really feel the need to teach the ignorant. well atleast not just kicking his but to get my point across. so i guess what im trying to say is, use what you know, not what the ignorant tell you. so you did a good job seeking the truth instead of taking the advise of another.
and aikido is not for pansies. you should go check out a good dojo and watch the sensei there.
-morgan

Avi Feygin wrote: here's were i stand on this issue. I have great respect for any true martial art and anyone who takes it seriously. I'm not training to kill someone i just want to be better than i am and also enjoy myself. otherwise id be practicing with firearms and bayonets. that story about the table tennis is really funny though. should have used the forbidden technique on him(scrotum tski). Sounds like a TKD mcdojo practitioner. I always get a good laugh when they show up... But back on topic what i really want to do is take aikido and just flip him into a wall... Oh well maybe in a year or two... but his main complaint is that Aikido is too soft on the opponent and the locks it employs aren't going to hurt the opponent or knock him out. But on the other hand i think boxing isn't a martial art. It has to have a spirit and honor otherwise it's just two animals beating each other bloody.

Boxing is one of the oldest and most practical martial arts. If all you want is something more formal because that seems like a "true martial art", have at it, but you may be disappointed in your ability to flip critics into a wall.

Aikido isn't soft on opponents, but it's a valid criticism whether it trains realistically. Many of the techniques aren't very modern or practical because the attacks don't reflect modern fighting. As a male you're pretty unlikely to have your wrist grabbed in a fight, so it's fair to criticize that as an inefficient use of time. I suspect much of the "wussy" comment is a reflection of people who take an art like Aikido, and hope to gain super fighting ability without mixing it up and taking their lumps in the process. That's not realistic, and Ueshiba had loads of experience sparring before codifying his art, so to just jump to the finished product makes it hard to develop the kind of timing and experience you need against someone good. Long story short, your reasons for training are your own, but you cuold do a lot worse than starting with boxing, regardless of what you do with Aikido.

Ricky Wood wrote: lol...now that you mention it.

Dan Austin wrote: Boxing is one of the oldest and most practical martial arts. If all you want is something more formal because that seems like a "true martial art", have at it, but you may be disappointed in your ability to flip critics into a wall. Aikido isn't soft on opponents, but it's a valid criticism whether it trains realistically. Many of the techniques aren't very modern or practical because the attacks don't reflect modern fighting. As a male you're pretty unlikely to have your wrist grabbed in a fight, so it's fair to criticize that as an inefficient use of time. I suspect much of the "wussy" comment is a reflection of people who take an art like Aikido, and hope to gain super fighting ability without mixing it up and taking their lumps in the process. That's not realistic, and Ueshiba had loads of experience sparring before codifying his art, so to just jump to the finished product makes it hard to develop the kind of timing and experience you need against someone good. Long story short, your reasons for training are your own, but you cuold do a lot worse than starting with boxing, regardless of what you do with Aikido.

You gotta learn to paddle in order to get into the wave.

And this whole wussy thing and the very well pointed out observation that if you are Male you are unlikely to get grabbed by the wrist is a good beginning point to the statement I'm about to make.
Aikido is practiced by a variety of women. We do get our wrists grabbed. We are by definition the anatomical carriers of the 'wusses' less p/c cousin the p-ss. So how about this. Wrist training is totally practical. And some Aikidoists will deal with the 'wuss' for life. Thank God ( or Kami or Ghandi or whatever).

Dan Austin wrote: Boxing is one of the oldest and most practical martial arts. If all you want is something more formal because that seems like a "true martial art", have at it, but you may be disappointed in your ability to flip critics into a wall. Aikido isn't soft on opponents, but it's a valid criticism whether it trains realistically. Many of the techniques aren't very modern or practical because the attacks don't reflect modern fighting. As a male you're pretty unlikely to have your wrist grabbed in a fight, so it's fair to criticize that as an inefficient use of time. I suspect much of the "wussy" comment is a reflection of people who take an art like Aikido, and hope to gain super fighting ability without mixing it up and taking their lumps in the process. That's not realistic, and Ueshiba had loads of experience sparring before codifying his art, so to just jump to the finished product makes it hard to develop the kind of timing and experience you need against someone good. Long story short, your reasons for training are your own, but you cuold do a lot worse than starting with boxing, regardless of what you do with Aikido.

Like I have not heard this a 1000 times spoken by someone with allot of incorrect 2nd hand assumptions.

You're on the wrong forum bro...

William Hazen

Morgan Wible wrote: i think that you should just blow off the ignorance of others. me and a fellow TKD practicionar(who is my best friend) sit in our 3rd period class, art,(im a junior in highschool) and we talk alot about martial arts in general, not just TKD but i talk about aikido too and we coment upon other martial arts such as karate or kungfu, and one day the kid sitting across from us tried to make it sound like we were being jerks and acting like we could take anyone. he sounded like he thought he could take either of us, and that martial arts was crap that didnt work. well, we werent trying to sound like jerks, and we both just kinda looked at him, like "did you really just say that?" and then he just kinda looked away. he was just ignorant, and i dont really feel the need to teach the ignorant. well atleast not just kicking his but to get my point across. so i guess what im trying to say is, use what you know, not what the ignorant tell you. so you did a good job seeking the truth instead of taking the advise of another. and aikido is not for pansies. you should go check out a good dojo and watch the sensei there. -morgan

sound almost identical to me. Except im a sophomore in high school.

Actually the wrist grab is a form of beginning practice. The wrist grab alone is an incomplete attack. It's been said that if an attacker can get ahold of you, you are basically already dead. We allow ourselves to be grabbed as part of the training process. Aikido is not fighting or about fighting. No matter how many tmes this is exlained, we all seem to forget, again and again. I suppose that just goes to show how hard transformational training really is.

In gassho,

Mark

Yes, Aikido’s main goal is not fighting, but this does not mean that one can train in Aikido without training in fighting. In my opinion, this is because in Budo, in Aikido, one is supposed to use the processes and practices of fighting to first expose oneself to oneself, and then to transform oneself according to the principles and tenets held as Truth by the art as they are brought through fighting, to the spirit, and into one’s Life as a whole. This is not to say that there are not a whole lot of things worth learning and/or developing via an Aikido training that does not partake of fighting processes and practices. There are. This is especially true in contrast to the number of other things one might be doing with their spare time. However, as numerous as these things may be, and even as significant as these things may be in a given person’s life, they should not be considered as anything more than they are: a part of Budo; a part of Aikido.

That said, from the other direction, preoccupations with fighting, especially those that use current pop-cultural assumptions and marketing techniques as their logical foundations, are probably going to be further away from the whole of Aikido than anyone that might be doing just one of the parts I mentioned above. For example, from the thread, “testing” Aikido by having it “compete” against a jab, or “examining” Aikido by “judging” katate-dori according to contemporary self-defense marketing strategies are way more off the mark than saying, “Aikido is love man! And you cannot attack me because I love you.” This is even true when said person couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

In the first case, you got what could amount to a lack of breadth in one’s training (in particular, not finding the really hard-core practitioners that are extremely well-conditioned, because they train multiple hours a day, have emotionless stares when they nearly kill you, because they consider it your job to protect your own rear, and have already used Aikido time and time again in a real field of operation). In the second case, you got what could amount to a lack of depth – not enough decades and/or hours per decade practicing within Aikido’s training paradigm as fast, as hard, and with as much attention to detail as one can muster.

dmv

Mike Haftel wrote: Does anybody else see the irony in this statement?

haha i was actually reserved about posting my statement for that very reason. i was still hoping my point would get through. oh well.

Avi Feygin wrote: but his main complaint is that Aikido is too soft on the opponent and the locks it employs aren't going to hurt the opponent or knock him out.

I do not think "aikido is for wusses", although I think mainstream aikido does have some "wussy" training practices. Anyway, if I were trying to make a case that aikido was wussy, your friend's argument is not at all what I'd say. The weakness of aikido is not that the techniques don't do enough damage. (A better criticism would be, "they're hard to pull off.")

The locks (and/or throws) in aikido are all perfectly capable of putting someone out of a fight. (Or at least putting them at a serious disadvantage for the rest of the encounter.) Because it uses full body movements, the amount of force being sent into the joint is quite substantial; furthermore, just about every technique in aikido ultimately spikes the person's head down at the floor in the process -- or at least, has the potential to do so.

I think most aikido techniques present a continuum of force -- you can do them lightly enough to just (perhaps roughly) dump someone on the ground or hold them in place, or strongly enough to snap their arm and/or send them hurtling down head-first. For example, ikkyo looks tame, but do it high-speed sometime. And while you're at it, trim the forward motion; just roll the arm over and put their shoulder straight down. Yeah. Faceplant.

But the problem is that, no matter how much "power" is potentially in the techniques, if you can't execute them, it's all moot. Here's a "deadly" technique: charge forward in a straight line, then throw everything you have into hitting someone's trachea with the webbing between your thumb and forefinger. Pretty dangerous! Is it an effective technique? No, not really, unless you're fighting someone who's strapped against the wall. The humble jab is a much better strike in most situations.

It always irks me when people see some macho display of grotesquely violent techniques, and nod in amazement at how "martial" or "practical" it is. A really "martial" technique is one that you can pull off reliably in a wide range of situations -- it only needs to do "enough".

I'll add that "yes", you should do aikido, because it's an amazing art that has serious potential for improving your life and helping you to help others. Very little of that potential comes in the form of making you uber-deadly.

Hey Dan,

For sure. I'm heading out for the week but when I get back I'll send ya a PM or post on this thread, up to you.

Cheers!

Grant

Grant Wagar wrote: Hey Dan, For sure. I'm heading out for the week but when I get back I'll send ya a PM or post on this thread, up to you. Cheers! Grant

Grant,

If it's all the same to you, posting here would probably be better for discussion. Otherwise PM is fine if the thread is dead by the time you get back. Thanks!