MMA vs. Traditional Arts

I recently started a thread on NHB Fighting and aikido because I was hoping to get a little support for my (somewhat naive) notions:

"A strong traditional martial artist would fare well in the UFC."

AND

"Traditional martial arts are as combat effective as Mixed Martial Arts."

It seems the overwhelming opinion is:

"Mixed Martial Arts are more effective than traditional martial arts."

Does everyone agree with the former statements or the latter?

Respectfully,

Scott in Kansas

Originally posted by Scott_in_Kansas Does everyone agree with the former statements or the latter? Respectfully, Scott in Kansas

KAMI : Dear Scott,

Since you ask, I'll have to disagree with all your three points :
- "A strong traditional martial artist would fare well in the UFC."
NO. Being a strong traditional martial artist offers no advantage in the specific context and specific rules of the UFC.

- "Traditional martial arts are as combat effective as Mixed Martial Arts."
NO. Neither are combat effetive, neither are developed for "the battle field". They're either sports oriented,art oriented or self-defense oriented.

"Mixed Martial Arts are more effective than traditional martial arts."
NO. Effetive in what sense? Effetive for what? In my opinion, they're both effetive for their own purposes (sports or arts).
My 2 cents...
Best

I think I'm agreeing with Kami in thinking that MMA are more effective in MMA competitions but probably not more effective toward the goals of Aikido.

My understanding is that a true Aikidoka could not even join one of those competitions because it is against our teaching to challenge others or seek out violent encounters. Tohei Sensei tells of one such experience in his book "Ki in Daily Life." (although he ends up taking the people on)

I also find it telling that the Gracie family invented the UFC and they always seem to win it. Home field advantage?

I don't think we'll know until someone tries it. Okay, holding open tryouts for the NHB for Aikidoka! Everybody who wants to, line up! All three of you!

Originally posted by Irony I don't think we'll know until someone tries it. Okay, holding open tryouts for the NHB for Aikidoka! Everybody who wants to, line up! All three of you!

KAMI : THREE?!?!?! Which three???
Best

Unfortunately the apparently sharp definition between types of martial art makes is think that some techniques are better than others etc. One of the beauties of fighting is that it is so dynamic. Sometimes just grabbing someones balls really hard can incapacitate them. Although martial arts can help you to identify weak spots and also techniques which allow you to take advantage of the situation the best technique is the one that 'works' at the time. Although you can say some techniques are invariabily more likely to be effective, it depends who you are fighting, on what they expect etc. However, at higher levels martial artists generally see a bit of other martial arts either in their own martial art or through training to defend against them anyway.

For this reason, when fighting someone with a broader experience of fighting or martial arts it is harder to do something they don't expect, unless they train with restrictions (e.g. a kick to the knee/balls or an attack from behind is a good way to deal someone with no experience outside boxing).

Although we stand behind the 'aikido' front, each of our abilities in self defence is very different. Aikido provides a useful way to analyse combat and work through realistic self-defence situations. Whether it works or not very much depends on your physical ability (not particularly strength, but the ability of your body to react in an effective way).

Ian

Kami, I was trying to imply that very few aikidoka want to participate in NHB.

One of the beauties of fighting is that it is so dynamic. Sometimes just grabbing someones balls really hard can incapacitate them.

Ian,

"Beauties of fighting" ??!!

And this is one of them??!!d

Is aikido a martial art or is it a form of dancing?

So far it appears to be a dance with no combat application. I have heard no one defend the art as a MARTIAL ART.

If I want to be able to defend myself should I study Karate and Ju Jitsu and forget about aikido?

Respectfully,

Scott in Kansas

Neither. Aikido is a Martial Way.

Aikido certainly can be called a martial art, but not, I think, a dance routine. It is graceful and beautiful to watch for some people, though.

Saying you want to learn self-defense is a bit vague, but if you want some quick "take-downs", aikido will not be for you. It generally takes a long time to be effective, and the technique can be subtle.

With the right teacher, aikido is much more than self defense. It is a budo whose aim is the purification of the self. I recommend you attend dojos which teach things that interest you, and get a feel for which will work best for your particular interests.

m.

Originally posted by Irony Kami, I was trying to imply that very few aikidoka want to participate in NHB.

KAMI : I know. That's why I put the "smiley" beside my text.
Best

Oh. The angry face threw me.

Originally posted by Scott_in_Kansas Is aikido a martial art or is it a form of dancing? So far it appears to be a dance with no combat application. I have heard no one defend the art as a MARTIAL ART.

You can go to www.aikidofaq.com and look at the "Stories and anecdotes" section.
It has a subsection titled "Real-life stories involving Aikido".
Have fun.

Aikido is a martial way, which is useful in self-defense and can help you vastly improve yourself in many ways. If you want to defend yourself, you should study Aikido. If you want to fight, you should consider Karate.

Originally posted by Scott_in_Kansas Is aikido a martial art or is it a form of dancing? So far it appears to be a dance with no combat application. I have heard no one defend the art as a MARTIAL ART. If I want to be able to defend myself should I study Karate and Ju Jitsu and forget about aikido? Respectfully, Scott in Kansas

Aikido does have some good self defence techniques. I know many relative beginners who have used techniques successfully to defend themselves or others. Self defence is about applying the right technique at the right time. If you are serious about learning self defence then don't limit yourself to one style or method of fighting.

I found that karate and jujitsu has many techniques that can be incorporated into aikido. Maybe you should look for a teacher that teaches more a more practical form of aikido.

In one of the early UFC'c there was an Aikidoka who fought. Suposedly he was a Shodan. He got his A$$ kicked along with the rest of his sorry carcass. As a watcher and Fan of MMA events I would say that Some knowage of the tactical concepts of Aikido might be usful but that's about it. Judo (which is all BJJ is in the end), wrestling, boxing and Thaiboxing are infinatly more appropriate dicipline for MMA competitors to study.
That said Mixxed Martial Artist are artist in the same sense that an Aikidoka or a Judoka is they just have a differant Focus. Traditional/Koryu pracianers on the other hand are a bit differant. There art require everybit as much dedication as MMA but the flexible nature that is in MMA doesn't come into being until much later. This is in my opinion due to the transmission nature of Koryu arts. Which is not to say that the techniques aren't useful either just that the Focus isn't the same. I have trained with MMA people and they take their art serious. Class starts with a warmup that would have many so called martial artist puking 500 squats countless crunches and pushups and other conditioning exercises (I say countless because I did lose count after 100 and I did puke). After all that they work technique just like anyother school slow first and then speeding up. It was rather like judo in shorts and a rashguard instead of a gi.
True modern man to man combat would be better reflected in the art of "Shotgundo"(TM) than in any weaponless art

Originally posted by Scott_in_Kansas "Mixed Martial Arts are more effective than traditional martial arts."

I guess it depends on the individual, and in the case of Aikido (as a traditional martial art) it may depend on the style of Aikido.

Many many moons ago when I had just begun training in Aikido, a friend of mine who taught a self defence form of Karate mixed with Jujitsu (Go Shin Do I think it was called)wanted me to come to his class instead, saying that an "art will never be as practical as something more tailored to self defence."

I decided to take my chances with Aikido. Now we're many years later, and guess who's requesting private Aikido classes to enhance the "practical self defence aspect" of his own mixed Karate-based style?

How the tables turn sometimes.

Not ALL Aikido however, may be "effective" in practicality.

My 2 cents.

L.C.

Well... I believe O-sensei himself said, looking at his pupils doing too much dance and too little Aiki technique, - "Aikido wa budo de aru!!" in the sense that Aikido is budo and has to work othewise you might as well take up dancing! Well this is my opinion of what it meant of curse, but at least two shihans (I know of) has said it too, so I take their word for it.

Another thing is something Tomita Sensei said once - "Other teachers (Aikido) give their students pieces of a cake (and they only eat the good part of it!), I teach people how to bake the cake.
What he meant is that he believe, that in order to be able to handle any situation (the aiki way!), the techniques that we learn shouldn't be trained as marely techniques against that scenario, instead learn all what the technique has to give. And the most inportent part of all in that sense - Open your mind.
It's all there! In all the techniques is everything you (and your body) need to know to be able to bake the cake, but in the event of attack you have to open your mind and expect nothing and everything.

phew! There I go again... Talking way too much!

Originally posted by L. Camejo I guess it depends on the individual, and in the case of Aikido (as a traditional martial art) it may depend on the style of Aikido. L.C.

Sorry gotta raise a flag here. Aikido is not now nor has it ever been a "Traditional Martial Art". That isn't to say that I don't like it or that it isn't a martial art which some folks might say but I would reserve the title traditional to the same sort of MA that can be described as Koryu or in the case of Karate Pre WW2.

After reading the discourse here, the following points came to mind.
1. On the subject of Aikido vs. MMA, actually Aikido is a mixed martial in which the founder incorporated elements from jujitsu, sword-fighting, spear-fighting and others. So there really is no debate. The only real question is, �gIs it mixed to your liking?�h If so, believe in it fully and do with all your worth. If not, throw in your own stuff, start your own school and call it something different.
2. Boxing rings are a lot more forgiving than real ground. Did you ever see Superfly-Snooka do a backflip off the top rope and land on his knees or stomach and win with a three count? It never looked like it hurt that much. My point? This is good if you are BJJ and don�ft want to hurt your knees taking someone down, but not so favorable if you want to use an Aikido throw to make someone �gone with the concrete.�h
3. I was watching a Japanese UFC called Pride the other day where a Japanese professional wrestler beat one of the Gracie boys. Broke his rib with a well-placed knee.
Does that mean we should all become Hulkamanaics?
It would mean very little if an Aikidoka won one of these events sunless he could keep winning everyday for the rest of his life. Otherwise people would not speak of the Aikidoka, but would talk about the one who beat him. But suppose he did go undefeated until the end, and then ended up with some side-effects like Parkinson�fs disease. Could that really be considered winning?

Cheers to all of you who didn�ft mind my gratuitous references to professional wrestlers

Here is a term that has mixed meaning depending on where you utter it. At the acting/entertainment end of things you have the Man-soaps of the WWF. In Japan where athleticism is respected more that big muscles the Pro's know a lot more about real wrestling and as it shows a lot less about acting but hey that's what pays. Then you have the socalled "amatures who wrestle for the varios Olympic teams. Some are true to the term most are professional athletes whose dicipline is wrestling. All are students of the Human Body and much more so that most "Martial Artist" That a professional wrestler beat a Gracie is like saying a Bicycle messenger has beaten a Tour de France cyclist (this has happened a lot in small races here in the US).
As for a boxing ring being forgiving have you ever set foot in one??? I have it ain't nothing but a thin layer of foam over plywood covered by canvas. The bounce comes from the amount of undersupport the ring platform has. less for wrestlers more for boxers. Still its a hard surface. What you see when the wrestlers land is great ukemi. I didn't really understand it until I started training as a small Judo club that uses a simple wrestling mat over concrete. Good Ukemi is all that keeps us from pain but we see very little in the way of injuries.
And lastly what the hell does Parkinson's disease which is a genetic disorder have to do with professional fighting. Even counting Ali which if it isn't genetic then it is Parkinsonia and not related in any way. MMA fighting has none of Boxing's punch drunk symptoms/problems. The, relatively unprotected, hand strikes don't happen near as often in MMA as the punches do in boxing. Why cause it hurt's like hell that's why and because fights are called faster in MMA than in Boxing. Repeated micro damage is common in boxing, most MMA losers tend to lose fast they progress from at a slight disadvantage to helpless much faster due to the added tools (other than just punching) that a MMA person has.

This old chestnut again......

No, seriously there is nothing wrong with this question - "is Aikido street effective....how would it fare against xxxxx-do etc...."

I personally started Aikido for self defence reasons, so the question of it's effectiveness has of course entered my mind. However, as the years have gone on, I now view Aikido as much more than just a potentially lethal form of defence.

Firstly, a good Aikidoka has an equal chance as any other good martial artist has, in a UFC type bout - if one was ever to enter. As someone very correctly pointed out; Aikido is a mixed martial art - albeit one that has had the time to evolve and blend nicely, but still mixed never-the-less. Therefore a 'good' Aikidoka, will be proficient at striking, throwing, ground control etc....

Secondly, in regards to combat effectiveness, yes Aikido can be devastating on the street. I have seen it and unfortunately - and I do mean that - had to use it. Aikido, technically is a very 'complete' martial art/way and the priciples of centering, focus and multiple attack awareness, are concepts echoed in many MMA's and 'Reality' based self defence systems. But make no bones about it - these MMA systems take just as long to be 'good' at as Aikido does. Combat is a very difficult skill to learn, do not think that MMA of any type will give you a 'quick fix' to a given situation - and that is what the teachers of these arts will say too.

Rob T

Originally posted by Scott_in_Kansas:
>Is aikido a martial art or is it a
>form of dancing?

Scott,

Speaking as a longtime student of budo in general and occasionally of aikido, I have to say that aikido is definitely a budo.

However, what that means may not be what you're asking. Remember, too, that there are lots of different kinds of aikido and lots of different teachers. To some, it's all about the philosophy of peace-love-harmony, to some it's about rock-and-roll with tori being the rock and uke doing the rolling. There's a huge spectrum of variation. For more, it's about a little of both.

>So far it appears to be a dance with no >combat application. I have heard no one >defend the art as a MARTIAL ART.

It's both, at different times. For a more martial application of aikido and it's principles, look at the aikido of some of the Yoshinkan folks, look at the Aikikai aikido of Chiba or Nishio.

But it's an art also capable of great beauty and grace.

>If I want to be able to defend myself should >I study Karate and Ju Jitsu and forget about >aikido?

Bottom line. You want self defense? Learn to box, learn to wrestle, buy an axe handle. You'll be well-set to handle 99% of anything you encounter.

You want to learn a martial art, then aikido might be for you. Self defense is a part, but not the whole -- by a long shot.

Aikido and the UFC -- IIRC, there WAS an aikidoka in the UFC some years back, a Tomiki stylist, I think. Don't remember how he did, but don't think it was a very stellar performance. What does that mean? Not a damn' thing. UFC, like any such competition is governed by rules and restrictions. It is tailored to folks who train to those rules and conventions. And don't forget, first and foremost, almost ALL of those NHB things are entertainment.

Aikido and jujutsu -- Foist of all, aikido IS a type of jujutsu. Jujutsu is a rather generic Japanese word used to describe any number of unarmed or lightly armed fighting systems. Aikido has roots in Daito Ryu jujutsu and Ueshiba also studied other old JJ systems in his youth. It is a unique and innovative system of jujutsu, but is still JJ.

Trad. vs Mixed MA -- Sigh. There are so very few pure budo out there. Judo is an amalgam of older jujutsu systems. Kendo is an amalgam of sword styles, iaido is same. Even the old guard (koryu like Shinto Muso Ryu, Kashima Shinryu, TSKSR, etc) tend to have some drift and inclusion in their histories.

I think the real question you're asking (correct me if I'm wrong) is 'What good is aikido?'

It's an art rich in philosophy and theory. It's an art capable of great power and potential. It's an art of subtle depths and broad reach.

You want fighting? Join a boxing club. You want budo? Get thee to a dojo.

The bottom line is that it ain't about effectiveness. Study budo for a long time and you'll learn a lot about personal combat, but you'll also learn a lot of other stuff that may not interest the individual looking solely for that ever-elusive and legendary 'street-effective' martial art.

Chuck

Scott,
Let me try this one on you. If you think that Aikido is a dance then maybe you need to look at "your" ukemi and your uke. Here is what I mean: Boxing would be a dance if neither partiner tried to hit the other. Same in Aikido. If you do not give a good clean comitted attack you are not helping Nagi. Likewise if your Uke does not attack you to the point that if you don't move you will get hit. Then he/she is not doing you any favors either. This is how you can answer your question about the effectiveness of Aikido. It answered mine.
I have two people who I trust undoutedly and on a regular basis we will "test" our ability in regard to Aikido. I say our ability because we have seen that Aikido works when done correctly. The question we try to answer is "am I doing it correctly"?
Aikido is a cooperative effort between two partners. However, if one partener don't do his/her job you will not have anything to blend with or to follow.