?? Exaggeration in Aikido ??

Roy,

Yeah, Ueshiba took on everybody it seems like.

In regard to the original post about a dan telling the beginners what they'll be able to do with Aikido (or any other art), I had an instructor who used to talk about what Aikido couldn't do ALL the time. I never really took him seriously (we had a couple instructors). I've always approached it from the perspective that any technique will work against any person--regardless of size--when used correctly.

It's cool to look over all the stuff that Ueshiba did, because it really demonstrates the potential of Aikido.

On another subject:

Monty Collier wrote: 1)The sad truth is that the average Aikido black belt has never even been in a real fight. 2)Everyone knows what they are going to do if they have to fight, then they get punched in the face.

1)I think you're falling prey to the idea that a black belt means something. After training for a while, I figured out that each belt means something different at each school. My experience is that--and they've all reported it--that a black belt doesn't mean you can "fight," it only means that you know the basics.

Basically, I interpret what you're saying as 'the sad truth is that not everyone has the same understanding of a black belt as me.'

If it was really sad that most dans haven't been in physical confrontations (I mean, sad to the people who matter--the experts) then being in fights would be a part of the test requirements.

Further, if the dan level Aikidoka were out getting into physical confrontations as part of their dan requirements (or for any other reason), there'd be a lot of Aikidoka in jail for felonius assaults...and a lot of bones broken...that's Aikido.

2)Yeah, isn't that Tyson's saying? So what?

When you train in a classic style, there's no "plans" (as the quote goes). It's reflex. If you really have a plan (thinking about what you're going to do) then you'll interfere with the techniques as they unfold.

A good MAist doesn't have plans. He/she has training.

Finally, as part of training, if you're not getting whacked in the face on occasion, then you're not really training. IMO. So, by the time someone is getting punched in the face, it shouldn't be a new experience...just a bump in making the technique work.

Dear Sean kelleher,
You make a very good point. During altercations, I can remember a strange communication taking place between me, and my opponent/attacker. Oddly, there seemed to be some sort of shared understanding while fighting. So, perhaps your opponent understood that, walking away UN-hurt was more important to you then victory or hurting him. This must have lessoned the tension and cause him to cool down a bit to reconsider his need to continue the altercation.

This link has exactly what some of us have been talking about. The author of the site below has certain "arts" against each other. I find it interesting that they even characterize it as "jujitsu ageist karate" and "jujitsu against kung fu". First of all, I didn't see any art against another. I saw two men against each other. When the jujitsu guy got the upper hand over the karate practitioner, I just wondered how good the karate guy was because that is the crux of the question. All that matters is the skill of the practitioner, not what art it is. Take a look.
http://www.aikijujitsu.ca/multimedia.htm

Jorge Garcia,
I have been to the Aikijujutsu dojo that created the website you are referring to. The head instructor at the dojo believes BJJ style jujitsu is a strong form of martial art, and thus, likes to substantiate his claims with mpegs etc... Believe it or not allot of fights end up on the ground. That Aikijujutsu dojo is pretty hard core, for they due allot of street realistic training like randori, ground work and no bullshit aikido.

I stand by what I said. It doesn't matter how "hardcore" the dojo is. Jujitsu didn't beat karate. The jujitsu guy beat the karate guy. If I am wrong about that, then you are claiming that this particular jujitsu guy can defeat any karate practitioner in the world. You couldn't convince me of that. I know that there is a karate man somewhere in the world who can defeat the jujitsu guy and if he did, it wouldn't mean that karate beats jujitsu. It would only mean that the karate guy was better at fighting than the jujitsu guy. The method doesn't make the man-the man makes the method. As for your comment on "bullshit Aikido". The Founder of Aikido figured out a long time ago that the very reason to take the way of peace is because there is no ultimate victory in fighting, boasting, and challenging each other into contests to see who is better. I'm not in Aikido because I believe Aikido can defeat jujitsu or any other art. I am in Aikido because Aikido isn't interested in fighting other arts and it shows me how to be strong without fighting. To quote my teacher, "The strength of Aikido is in embracing others."
Regards,

Jorge Garcia,
(1) Well of course I/we can't assume Jujitsu will always beat Karate or kunfu! Especially based on an mpeg! Although, I do understand, and see your relevance to the thread by bringing this up. It would be like saying if you take Aikido you will be able to beat big guys and multiple attackers.

(2) Aikido is beautiful and flowy, but do you really think thats what it will look like in an altercation?

(3) What I meant by "no bullshit Aikido," was. That dojo trains in Aikido with a real-world, self defense based techniques. (Not to say no other dojo does also)

Roy Leclair wrote: Jorge Garcia, (1) Well of course I/we can't assume Jujitsu will always beat Karate or kunfu! Especially based on an mpeg! Although, I do understand, and see your relevance to the thread by bringing this up. It would be like saying if you take Aikido you will be able to beat big guys and multiple attackers. (2) Aikido is beautiful and flowy, but do you really think thats what it will look like in an altercation? (3) What I meant by "no bullshit Aikido," was. That dojo trains in Aikido with a real-world, self defense based techniques. (Not to say no other dojo does also)

Well Roy, just from what I've seen in MMA:
A few years ago, most karateka, kickboxers, and Mouai Thai fighters looks preety poor in fights against BJJ/GJJ grabblers. But the recent fights I saw were quite different. Those guys learnt their lessons. Their ground fight still looks poor. They are still kickers and boxers, not wrestler or judoka. Some of them are quite good in avoiding to being taken down, some occasionally get out and stand up again. And very often the hard punches and kicks stopped th BJJ guys from fighting, often enough by ko. Yes, I have seen even BJJ guys with strong and fast strikes.

To your second point:it really depends on how you are practicing Aikido. And it is irrelevant what we believe. If you follow the other threads you might have seen that even the definition of what techniques are aikido-techniques is very difficult to say, as most techniques taught as aikido basics are simple variations from (Daito Ryu) Ju Jutsu and sword fighting. I understand that there are many dojo practicing some kind of "Japanese Dancing" and there are some shodanka, which I would not believe to be violent enough to survive in the street. but even in those "dance clubs" I have seen guys and ladies, I would not try to touch outside the dojo, as I haven't even seen what happened, when I started flying. And some of them looked like week ladies or little old men. There is no proof as these people are too health conscious to go for tournaments. You might get pretty good fighting abilities much faster in other aikido, ju jutsu or "battlefield" dojo. That is, because the "dance clubs" are practicing a DO by self defence techniques for improving their personality and not for searching street fights. And I have seen similar karate dojo. Most karateka there were great kata performer or semi-contact fighters and many of them have never learnt do punch hard in a stress situation. When I practiced karate, I thought it is much over judo, as punches and kicks are much more important. I recognized, that this is not necessarily true. And many other guys of other martial arts would have to agree.

But never call any sport "bullshit", just because they do not seem to fill your view of sport.
Chess is a hard sport, although they do not need big muscles. And aikido does not pretend to be the only efficient technique supplier. If performed well, the techiques are effective and efficient. But even if many people do not search for street applicability it is their serious WAY.
And in the street I do not to be attacked by an unprovoked high graded aikidoka. And probably not by a high graded experienced BJJ guy, karateka, Mouai Thai. If I were done and killed by him, I would say that is not a problem of aikido, but a problem of BJJ, the relevant karate style, Mouai Thai, if the are creating such effective fighters, before leading them on the right way.

Kind regards


Dirk

"less then impressive insight. This question is more then your typical "will it work,"or "this-vs-that."

Cheers Roy..amazing how much we assume about a person or their thoughts by what we put down in a few sentenses eh?

At the end of the day though the basic underlying question is still will it work?...thats the question the new member is thinking and also you too perhaps...just wrapped up a little in deeper thought about your responsabilities as a teacher.

But you know in Japan nobody has ever promised me anything...never said what aikido is for or it's benefits...I personally feel an intelligent person can make their own decision on this and not need ask for reassurance from others. One thing my Sensei has said to me though is "Aikido is life or death"...or "Aikido is philosophy"..again many ways to read into that...it's left to the individual to make of it what they will....

On that note I wouldn't promise a thing to a new member...to do so would be less than responsible imho

Kindest regards


Lee

I think that in order for you to be a really good fighter , you need to know more than one style. Aikido is great but there are alot of things that aikido doesnt cover. Aikido works with mostly grappling and throwing and pinning not alot of striking is involved and virtually no kicks. ( they should be involved but rarely are from what i've seen) . If you walk up to multiple opponents , or even one stronger opponent, knowing only some aikido, then most likely the odds are against you.

Hya Paige

Yeah true..but it does depend on the style of aikido too. Nishio style incorporates a lot of atemi and influences from Karate etc which makes it more err "martial" than other styles.

Do we practise aikido to be good fighters though?

Personally if aikido puts me in a position where someone can't significantly hurt me and I have the chance to remove myself from a situation then I'm very happy. Being a "good fighter" hints at causing pain and injury to the other person...something not usually desirable..though again circumstances may dictate the necessicity of this if weapons are involved for example.

I have to admit though the ability to use kicks is of great value...especially in confined areas..on trains etc. My main MA is aikido but it hasn't stopped me investigating Karate etc for this reason.... Some aikido technique do utilise kneeing techniques etc but I think most dojos omit these..

Yet almost every aiki technique gives the opportunity to devastate the opponent if necessary and performed correctly..Kaiten nage for eg allows at least two...

Regards

Lee

Dear Paige,
I agree, 100%. Thanks for replying to the main point of the thread, without preaching! One thing tho, I truly believe that Aikido is the absolute best for "defending" oneself, whatever your size is! And overtime, (especially if the Aikidoka were to start at a young age) I think any sized Aikidoka could "offensively" take down larger or multiple attackers.

Agree totally Roy..at the highest level Aikido is in a different league completely

Lee

I starting hitting and kicking much better after studying aikido and understanding how to off balance and take center etc. Before I was just kicking and hitting at my opponent. Now I move, off balance and blast him into tommorrow.

Jorge,

You're dead-on. You've got to understand...it's like when an instructor demonstrates a technique...no matter how sensible the technique is, people will have a twisted interpretation...go figure.

Paige Frazier wrote: 1)I think that in order for you to be a really good fighter , you need to know more than one style. Aikido is great but there are alot of things that aikido doesnt cover. 2)Aikido works with mostly grappling and throwing and pinning not alot of striking is involved and 3)virtually no kicks. ( they should be involved but rarely are from what i've seen) . If you walk up to multiple opponents , or even one stronger opponent, 4)knowing only some aikido, then most likely the odds are against you.

1)If Aikido taught you to respond to everything, would it be able to "make you a good fighter?"

2)The issue isn't with Aikido, it's with your training. Aikido has a group of techniques that respond to striking--it's not Aikido's fault you don't train in them frequently.

3)From a defensive position...a strike is a kick as a kick is a strike. From an offensive position, my understading is that it's foolish to reduce your balance and speed to kick...particularly when Aikido offers a technique to fit any hole where a kick would fit.

4)If you only train Aikido for your entire life, you'll only know "some" Aikido...but I still wouldn't approach that person with five of my baddest friends.

I think most people are smart enough to know where their abilities are at and are able to assess what they can and are incapable of doing as far as martial arts goes.

Many do not though! I myself have thought I knew more than I did, until I met someone who kicked my ass into tommorrow. I now study MA with that person/group. It is humiliating and an eye opener, but I am better for it.

It is easy to surround yourself with people that think like you do and pat each other on the back and feed each other compliments about how good each other is etc. You have to watch out for that "group think" mentality!

I also found that while many dojo's consider shodan to be a beginners rank. You will find most BJJ guys are extremely proficient by Purple belt, and by brown they are very extremely proficient. A black belt in BJJ from a reputable organization...well they don't give them away!

I believe most martial arts to be nearly the same on a physical "technique based" level. However, I think the different ways martial artists train is one of the only key differences between styles. I believe superior training and conditioning wins the fight, not the style.

In many cases, people doing Judo, BJJ, etc. have superior training and conditioning when it comes to physical altercations. Although, I would say arts like Tai Chi, Aikido, etc. have superior training methods when dealing with lots of mental stress, emotional problems, etc. You really need to find a good balance.

Yes, many Aikido dojos are very adept at dealing with physical conflict and many Judo/grappling dojos teach excellent ways to calm yourself internally. It is ALL IN THE WAY YOU TRAIN!

Dear Mitch,

I like your point. I also have felt for awhile now that Aikido is an "emotionally ball aced" martial art. I have been to the BJJ, mixed martial art style clubs and found the testosterone level to be too high. Although, my experience with Judo clubs were positive, not quite like Aikido, but much better then the others. I remember talking to the members of harder style clubs, and the topic was always, this will stop this, or beat that etc... It was like a freak show in someways, and I felt from then on that thinking in such a violent one sided manner is bad for your karma. Unlike Aikido which emphasizes peace etc...

Mitch Kuntz wrote: 1)In many cases, people doing Judo, BJJ, etc. have superior training and conditioning when it comes to physical altercations. Although, I would say arts like Tai Chi, Aikido, etc. have superior training methods when dealing with lots of mental stress, emotional problems, etc. You really need to find a good balance.

Yeah? Funny, I have yet to see a Judoka or BJJer move as fast across area as I do...with balance under control.

LOL. It's funny how often I see those guys with their ears, eyes and back of neck/head left vulnerable to attack.

I'll say this, I wouldn't want to be on the ground with any of them with some experience. Nor would I say that they're not good arts...both are excellent. However, I think it's inaccurate to say their training is the best for physical altercations...for ring fights? Maybe.

[quote=Lee Price]Hya Paige

Yeah true..but it does depend on the style of aikido too. Nishio style incorporates a lot of atemi and influences from Karate etc which makes it more err "martial" than other styles. [quote]

This is very true. I guess i should have said In MY style. (which is traditional aikido)

'll say this, I wouldn't want to be on the ground with any of them with some experience. Nor would I say that they're not good arts...both are excellent. However, I think it's inaccurate to say their training is the best for physical altercations...for ring fights? Maybe.

I wonder why the U.S. Army picked MMA and BJJ as the basis for our training versus aikido. We could have chosen any arts. ...our lives depend on the proper training.

Not saying you aren't any good at aikido, nor aikido is not a legitimate art, but as far as realistic, and effectiveness, and rapiditiy of training....well aikido does not measure up. Sorry.

I have experience in aikido and bjj.

Paige Frazier,
No style of Martial arts, or style of Aikido is going to be perfect for you. You have to both make the "best," and "most," of whatever style you do. I think you should do kicks/strikes(or whatever) on your own. And when you are at the dojo doing generic stuff, look for the hidden opportunities to strike and kick. This way you will tailor your Aikido to be perfect for you . If this sounds like preaching, I did not mean it to.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: I wonder why the U.S. Army picked MMA and BJJ as the basis for our training versus aikido. We could have chosen any arts. ...our lives depend on the proper training. Not saying you aren't any good at aikido, nor aikido is not a legitimate art, but as far as realistic, and effectiveness, and rapiditiy of training....well aikido does not measure up..

Hi Kevin,
Isn't that the point? Combat training (and I'm talking for soldiers and not the "combat" purported to be what happens on the street) is all about making the most effective kill in the shortest time with the minimal at hand. I would suggest that Aikido is not necessarily the easiest martial art to learn, and for this reason would be impractical to teach soldiers in the short time they have to learn/practice unarmed combat.

It's not a question of proper training or effectiveness as virtually any Aikido technique can easily maim or kill a person, but I do have to ask whether this is the reason we practice Aikido. I personally don't have much need to kill people in my daily life and I'm certain that I'm not likely to come into a situation where I must resort to unarmed combat because my rifle has run out of ammunition.

I would ask why most armies still teach close-quarters bayonet drills or perform small-arms training? This type of fighting is kill or be killed, where there are no courtesies, no niceties; you do what you are trained to do. As I mentioned in an earlier post, if nothing else, Aikido gives you the option of entering and to keep running away; do that in the Army and your CO is likely to shoot you themselves.

That said, I believe that Aikido offers a practical means of defence for the everyday person, and moreover an ongoing pursuit for life. I'm sure that were I a soldier, I would hope that my training included techniques to suit a battle-field situation, but as a civilian Aikido is more than enough.

Good stuff Sean, You sum up well things I am trying to convey as well. The purpose and intent of your training.

In your later post you elluded that soldiers are all about killing and need to learn only techniques that lead to effeciency in killing. That is not entirely true. I'd say in the past a majority of our training did center around this paradigm.

Today, we are finding that this is not true and we must use minimal force or interact with people on a interpersonal level. Our training in non-lethal weapons and combatives is beginning to reflect this.

But, you do well at summing up what I am trying to convey. The right training for the right situation and goal.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: I wonder why the U.S. Army picked MMA and BJJ as the basis for our training versus aikido. We could have chosen any arts. ...our lives depend on the proper training. Not saying you aren't any good at aikido, nor aikido is not a legitimate art, but as far as realistic, and effectiveness, and rapiditiy of training....well aikido does not measure up. Sorry. I have experience in aikido and bjj.

LOL. Yeah, and I wonder why they pay $100 for a regular pair of pliers or why they opted for the M-16 over the AK back when the choice was obvious.

The reason for hand-to-hand in the military is to get the soldier ready to use violence...not to actual be a hand-to-hand killing machine. Think about it...why would you guys spend all the time in basic on the range rather than doing hand-to-hand...even though developing the ability to use a weapon properly is farrrr easier than killing with your bare hands?

I'll tell you a reasonable possibe reason for them to choose the BJJ and/or MMA instead of Aikido...It's easier to use.

Here's another: In ten, twenty years when we're older, we'll be slower and weaker. The military's BJJ/MMA stuff will be much less effective for you to use then...since the military doesn't have forty and fifty yr. olds (generally) out fighting hand-to-hand, the long term use of the MA isn't a concern...so Aikido wouldn't appeal to them for that.

How about another: If (and this is an ENORMOUS if) the military made decision totally off the merit of what was "good" and "bad," rather than egos, what criteria must be met for the hand-to-hand stuff to be "good?" I gaurantee the cost of training is going to a consideration. A soldier's ability to catch onto it will be another.

My experience is that not too many average people really catch onto Aikido very quick...I think they know that too.


So, when you're ready for a sweet MA that'll last you till you're old, come on down to an Aikido dojo.


LOL! I just reread your post. Not effective or realistic? If that's been your experience, then I'd say that your Aikido instructor that you visited once or twice was either 1)not showing you Aikido because you weren't ready for it or 2)wasn't showing you Aikido because he didn't really understand it himself.

Agreed, Aikido isn't a quick learn...Neither is any other MA. If you wan't "killer techniques" go to the bookstore and pick up any defense book and practice them with your buddies.