My thoughts on Competition vs Non-competition

Hi all I'm up really late had some thoughts popping around my head on what these two are trying to teach and convey, hope you don't mind me sharing. Here they are please feel free to add or comment on anything I've written.

Competitive:- Teaches

1. To win
2. To crush the opponent
3. At any cost ( within the rules)
4. This teaches one how to dominate the opponent
5. This proves Who is physically stronger.

Non-competitive:- Teaches

1. To not lose ( so no one loses).
2. To take care of the opponent
3. So there is no cost to anyone (because there really are no rules)
4. This teaches one how to create harmony.
5. This proves it's not about strength. It's about spirit.

In Budo

Andy B

Andrew Bedford wrote: Competitive:- Teaches 1. To win 2. To crush the opponent 3. At any cost ( within the rules) 4. This teaches one how to dominate the opponent 5. This proves Who is physically stronger. Andy B

i'll answer with a story. once upon a time... ok good story should start with that

once upon a time, i was in a karate tournament. in the final round, i went up against this guy with an incredible front kick. his timing was impeccable. his reach was beyond belief. he blew through all my defends. i lost. afterward, as we walked off the fighting arena, i congratulated him and mentioned his techniques. he told me that i left an opening that i might not realised. so we stood there talking to each other, and showing each other techniques and counters like two old training partners. we parted way with warm hand shakes and smiles. lost without defeat, win without glory.
strong steel needs tempering in fire. strong ki needs beans, cabbage, and kimchee. strong aiki needs donuts and coffee.

Andrew Bedford wrote: Competitive:- Teaches 1. To win 2. To crush the opponent 3. At any cost ( within the rules) 4. This teaches one how to dominate the opponent 5. This proves Who is physically stronger. Non-competitive:- Teaches 1. To not lose ( so no one loses). 2. To take care of the opponent 3. So there is no cost to anyone (because there really are no rules) 4. This teaches one how to create harmony. 5. This proves it's not about strength. It's about spirit.

I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong, but I think you can easily observe instances of any of the above points happening in either a competitive or non-competitive environment.

In fact, I think that some type of "competitive" practice can be very beneficial, because it gives us a way to develop and test our functional skills in a truly spontaneous engagement.

Competition by itself isn't bad, when done correctly.

What do I mean by that? Just look at Judo outside of Japan. It's all about winning the game now. For the most part, only the Japanese Judoka's go for ippon, the rest of them just goes for a points and try to hold the lead. The spirit of Budo's all but lost. The same can be seen creeping into other martial arts like Kendo, Karate, and many of the traditionally competitive Budo's.

I don't know how it's like at Shodokan, but I hope they're still competing with self-improvement in mind. If the competition degenerates into a game of points and technicalities in the rules, then the style itself as a Budo is finished.

The reason why O-sensei forbade competition isn't just because it can breeds jealousy and disrupt harmony. Competition, when done right, can foster friendship and sharpen the skills of the competitors. But what happens in reality is that people let their greed overcome them, and goes for victory at all cost. The rules, which should've existed to keep the competitors safe while sparring, becomes nothing more than the framework in which victory is sought.

This leads to the competitors thinking everything in the mental box created by the "rules". This effectively makes what they're doing a game. Training for such a thing only dulls the blade that is yourself. True Budo has no rules. When you are in combat, you use whatever it is you got, and there's only the goal of survival, and nothing else. This do-or-die mentality is what a true Budo should always keep in mind, when training.

As usual, the fault of competition doesn't lie in competition itself, but the competitors. The human factor is always flawed, and the original intention of competition is warped until it becomes winning for the sake of winning, and not polishing yourself.

Well, lots of that looks wrong to me. The quote system is a bit awkward so I'll add my comments in bold

Andrew Bedford wrote: ... feel free to add or comment on anything I've written. Competitive:- Teaches 1. To win 2. To crush the opponent Not at all, crush? Why? Heavyweight Judo, sure, but not much else. 3. At any cost ( within the rules) Ridiculous. 4. This teaches one how to dominate the opponent 5. This proves Who is physically stronger. Nope, physically weaker can prevail using Luck, timing, technique and experience. Physically stronger obviously gives an advantage. Non-competitive:- Teaches 1. To not lose ( so no one loses). Nope, it actually teaches to Lose by the absence of competition. 2. To take care of the opponent 3. So there is no cost to anyone (because there really are no rules) ??What?? 4. This teaches one how to create harmony. 5. This proves it's not about strength. It's about spirit. The opposite! The strongest spirit is honed by competition!

Now, I suspect these lists are there to promote Non-competition and make competition look bad ... to what end?

I think it would be really difficult to construct a good rule system for aikido competition.

If such a rule system dispenses with strict safety measures, I expect aikido competition to result in injuries all the time, like dislocated shoulders, sprained wrists, elbows, broken noses, fingers, ribs. But if we do implement strict safety measures in competition, it could result in many aikido techniques to be banned in competition.

Another thing, to give competitors an incentive to attack their opponent, one would have to award points for succesful attacks (strikes and kicks? grabs too?), not only for succesful defense (throws and pins? evasions too?). But that would probably result in many competitors training for attack rather than defense (because it suits them better), becoming more like MMA fighters than aikidoka.

Would competitive aikido still be recognizable as aikido, or would it be more like MMA competition? What would be the difference between MMA and aikido competiton rules?

Dave de Vos wrote: ...What would be the difference between MMA and aikido competiton rules?

Obviously (IMO) aikido competition would be without gloves, which would be a disadvantage for strikers because their hands are not protected from injuries from hitting their opponent's skull.

And wearing a gi would be a difference too (and grabbing it would be allowed).

Andrew Bedford wrote: Hi all I'm up really late had some thoughts popping around my head on what these two are trying to teach and convey, hope you don't mind me sharing. Here they are please feel free to add or comment on anything I've written. Competitive:- Teaches 1. To win 2. To crush the opponent 3. At any cost ( within the rules) 4. This teaches one how to dominate the opponent 5. This proves Who is physically stronger. Non-competitive:- Teaches 1. To not lose ( so no one loses). 2. To take care of the opponent 3. So there is no cost to anyone (because there really are no rules) 4. This teaches one how to create harmony. 5. This proves it's not about strength. It's about spirit. In Budo Andy B

Agreed.

Regards.G.

Competition can:

1) Teach mutual respect
2) Teach humility
3) Teach you to remain anchored in reality
4) Teach you never to rest upon your laurels
5) Teach you the true value of peace

Non-Competition can:

1) Teach overly collusive training.
2) Lead to unrealistic beliefs about one's abilities.
3) Lead to a false sense of security and ideas about peace

Competition and non-competition can each lead to genuine problems and genuine personal growth. You can slant things anyway you want to support your position on these issues without saying anything meaningful or substantial at all.

Marc Abrams

Dave de Vos wrote: I think it would be really difficult to construct a good rule system for aikido competition. If such a rule system dispenses with strict safety measures, I expect aikido competition to result in injuries all the time, like dislocated shoulders, sprained wrists, elbows, broken noses, fingers, ribs. But if we do implement strict safety measures in competition, it could result in many aikido techniques to be banned in competition. Another thing, to give competitors an incentive to attack their opponent, one would have to award points for succesful attacks (strikes and kicks? grabs too?), not only for succesful defense (throws and pins? evasions too?). But that would probably result in many competitors training for attack rather than defense (because it suits them better), becoming more like MMA fighters than aikidoka. Would competitive aikido still be recognizable as aikido, or would it be more like MMA competition? What would be the difference between MMA and aikido competiton rules?

Exactly Dave. It is called MMA, Judo, BJJ, Sambo or any number of good jiu jitsu based systems. The benefits of them are why I study them. Each methodology has its benefits.

Andrew Bedford wrote: Hi all I'm up really late had some thoughts popping around my head on what these two are trying to teach and convey, hope you don't mind me sharing. Here they are please feel free to add or comment on anything I've written. Competitive:- Teaches 1. To win 2. To crush the opponent 3. At any cost ( within the rules) 4. This teaches one how to dominate the opponent 5. This proves Who is physically stronger. Non-competitive:- Teaches 1. To not lose ( so no one loses). 2. To take care of the opponent 3. So there is no cost to anyone (because there really are no rules) 4. This teaches one how to create harmony. 5. This proves it's not about strength. It's about spirit. In Budo Andy B

Competition teaches that in order to win, you don't do it alone...it takes the help of many. Cooperation.
Competition teaches control. You can't crush your opponents without regard to safety. Compassion and control.

Win at any cost? No...winning spirit and sportsmanship taught me something different. Watch the karate kid...that story showed the downfall of that attitude.

Sure it teaches u to dominate..that is what u do in martial arts. U dominate and control. End of discussion. Once u do this u can show compassion and restore stuff, but let's be honest, u don't reason with bad guys and evil, u dominate and control, only when u can stop it, can u deal with resolution. I hate the hippie crap that is born out of people that really have no clue what it means to deal with someone that is bent on hurting or destroying u in someway, physically, mentally, or spiritually. If nothing else having the capacity to do so is a requirement. If not, u have nothing.

proves who is physically stronger? No it is more complex than that. Read mushashi..it proves who has the most skill usually, but it may also prove who was lucky, made a better decision. It sometimes proves to u that the good guy doesn't always win...which is one of the most valuable lessons in budo.
Mrc covered the rest really well...shhhh Marc don't tell anyone where I am writing this from!

Well, I disagree with many of the ideas being presented as mutually exclusive.
I've done my aikido in open rooms: With gloves/Without gloves, With gi/Without gi, in MMA and BJJ schools, and as a third kyu totally dominating every shihan I have ever met....with no change in me doing much of anything..... but Morihei Ueshiba's Aiki.
No problems at all.
I would suggest that Aiki is not and has never been, the issue, but rather the lack thereof. Aikido once was and should be again, among the most powerful arts the world has known. The Japanese have no way of fixing it that I have seen or am aware of. We need to do it for them, and for ourselves!
Dan

I agree Dan. but you will be exluded from tje conversation as filks cintinue to try and frame things in little dogmatic boxes to protect turf. I agrer that done correctly prinicplrs are thr same regardleaa what model u use to study them.

Dan Harden wrote: Well, I disagree with many of the ideas being presented as mutually exclusive. I've done my aikido in open rooms: With gloves/Without gloves, With gi/Without gi, in MMA and BJJ schools, and as a third kyu totally dominating every shihan I have ever met....with no change in me doing much of anything..... but Morihei Ueshiba's Aiki. No problems at all. I would suggest that Aiki is not and has never been, the issue, but rather the lack thereof. Aikido once was and should be again, among the most powerful arts the world has known. The Japanese have no way of fixing it that I have seen or am aware of. We need to do it for them, and for ourselves! Dan

I kind of assumed the type of competition we were talking about here was match competition with strict rules, a referee and such. That's why I was hypothesizing about how aikido match competition might differ from MMA rules (if they would be the same, why study aikido instead of going to an MMA school only if you want to compete with MMA rules?).

What you are describing, to me seems to be more along the lines of free form sparring / rolling / randori, not match competition (or is it?). In my limited experience in sparring, it appeared to be more like a training or testing tool than competition (learning being more important than winning, mostly).

I was thinking that competition meant match competition, not sparring / rolling / randori. But from your post and Kevin's, I now realize that it can mean either of those things. Sorry for the thread drift I caused by my misunderstanding.

I think part of my misunderstanding was from my interpretation of the distinction made by the original poster. I'd say that sparring teaches the middle ground between the things classified under non-competitive and the things classified under competitive.

Dear all,
I have read your comments and I can see that this topic is starting to give a few opinionated views about benefits of competitions and non-competitions etc, but personally I agree with Andy's initial post and I don't think he meant it in the wrong way about those who believe in competitions. I think his view is shared when we understand the concept of Aikido being a discipline and not a sport, where we do not take competition into account. Now if anyone likes competitions then it is a choice I respect too and I can see why some people feel the need to participate into competitions and that is fine. At the end of the day we are all individuals and this topic can never be truly resolved by choosing which one is ultimately the best. The choice is within our preferences. Personally, again I am not discriminating competitions, but there is a point that is worth mentioning: when competitions are involved, often there will be forbidden techniques in the competition purely because it is too dangerous and then we could end up doing training putting aside these powerful techniques only to use the ones that are allowed in the competition and to me that is a danger of not training the martial arts as a whole with its full spectrum of techniques it offers. I have seen 'the wrong side' where they teach to hit the fastest but this technique may not bring an opponent down, i.e. someone could punch me first but if my second punch is a knock out? Do I still lose? This can be argued for a long time and personally the competition aspect brings a winner today only... Anyway I can see why people bring this whole debate over again and again.
Regards,
Nick Regnier

http://www.aspireaikidolondon.co.uk
Follow us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Aspire...79305248800728
and Twitter https://twitter.com/AspireAikidoLon

Dave de Vos wrote: I kind of assumed the type of competition we were talking about here was match competition with strict rules, a referee and such. That's why I was hypothesizing about how aikido match competition might differ from MMA rules (if they would be the same, why study aikido instead of going to an MMA school only if you want to compete with MMA rules?). What you are describing, to me seems to be more along the lines of free form sparring / rolling / randori, not match competition (or is it?). In my limited experience in sparring, it appeared to be more like a training or testing tool than competition (learning being more important than winning, mostly). I was thinking that competition meant match competition, not sparring / rolling / randori. But from your post and Kevin's, I now realize that it can mean either of those things. Sorry for the thread drift I caused by my misunderstanding.

Hi Dave
Just about any fight exists within rules. Sparring for the most always happens with agreed rules-and then most people who spar- are doing it to experiment and learn, sometimes for competition, sometimes not.
Training-to me- exists on three levels
1. You do solo work to change the mind/body
2. You do push/ pull stress testing to learn to condition the mind/body- to forces against it.
3. You do static martial arts kata (including drills in sport oriented forms like Judo BJJ and wrestling) to learn principles of movement and to condition the mind/ body for use in technique.
4. You do flow drills to condition the body and to learn how to make those principles and techniques happen against someone who doesn't want them to happen to them at speed.
5. You spar to test and better learn how to utilize all of your training in a more pressurized yet controlled environment. For most people this only included people in one style. This included almost all competition.
6. You fight for different reasons. Sport fighting has rules. Believe it or not most bar fights have preconditioned "rules" implied or through conditioning;

• Men will almost never kick you in the balls (women almost always do) So there is a natural inhibitory factor for men to not do that over women
• Men will almost never pull hair (women almost always do) though I did see guys hold on to a guy's beard while they pummeled him on two different occasions.
• Both will almost always grab you to try and close the distance
• Women will almost certainly try to embarrass and rip the clothes and pull earings of women. For men (unless it is hockey where they need the counter balance on the rink) it is usually accidental.
• Women don't usually punch in the face-it is the number target for men.
• Women will scratch at face and eyes -I have seen a man do that
• Both will defend their friends and start gang fighting...you.
• Men used furniture -chairs, pool cues, pool balls.
• Neither that I have seen go for a lethal attack to the throat.
• Only men-in my experience will change on you and go lethal.
• I have only had a knife (pulled on me and others) by men.

This is from my experience hanging out with bikers in the 70's and also being a bouncer and watching You tube videos and talking with other bouncers. Things may be different today and in different cultures.

My main point here is that fighting- for strange reasons- typically included inhibitors without being stated. As an alternate example (for reasons I will not discuss here) I know professionals that will go for your eyes, balls, and throat to stop you and then kill you. One of which ended with a huge guy opened up from crotch to ear as he bled out on top of the guy below him. Their idea of a fight is a bit different for some pretty serious reasons. Now, oddly, while they need to make it home over any perceived notion of rules, their peers on a different day, may have to function within very defined rules.

So, competition with rules is not as artificial as some claim, yet it is also a big jump toward a more reality based martial art experience. Sparring is another level that Aikido randori does not come close to covering.
Most so called martial artists -in real fight would- prove to be neither martial or an artists in any sense of the word. The reasons for that are simple. other than in your own imagination, you are never going to be able to pull off what you do in a dojo in a stress induced adrenaline-dump state, unless you have done that so many times you can go cold and move freely.
In fact most Martial artists (and by the way MMA and Bjj guys) when they start to get totally dominated and picked apart while getting pummeled, amp up and stress and start to gas. And when they see the other guy cold...instantly realize they are in trouble. I've seen a couple of guys talking to the guy as the beat the crap out of him, thus putting the nail in the coffin that they are head hunting and not stressed in the least way. That alone controls their mindset even further.

On the whole I don't think it is wise for the majority of Aikido people to even be in these discussions. Due to the nature of their training, they really have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to combatives. It is the another one reason they have earned a reputation for falling apart under stress against better trained Martial artists sport or otherwise. I am not saying all Aikido-ka as I know and have met guys around the world who cross train and are extremely capable. They will be the first to tell you that their aikido has soared to new heights because of it.

In closing I don't want to hear some nitwit telling me I am bashing aikido again. I think I am on the cutting edge of making Aikido extremely powerful again-in dojos around the world filled with Aikido teachers. Why? Because I have a love for what Morihei Ueshiba was trying to do and say, and he would be behind this movement 100%.
Dan

The nitwit comment didn't refer to you Dave, but rather to the poorly thought through, inexperienced blather that is sure to follow from certain quarters and ruin yet another potentially thought provoking discussion.
All the best
Dan

An alternative view.

For me competition has worth, it's not aikido but it has worth.

Those arts like boxing etc are competitive and they do build charachter and teach many plus things. It takes great courage just to step into a ring let's not forget. But it is a sport and like all sports and contact sports it has its set rules but more importantly you do things to each other you wouldn't do in real life, walking down the street.

Take football for example (soccer) or even rugby. We used to kick lumps out of each other and all kinds and it's all part of the game. It's funny how when you agree to a game it doesn't matter yet if someone kicked you on the street you would want to knock his head off. All good games.

Then we come to martial. Here's where I disagree with competition yet fully agree with martial.

I see no valid connection except for 'ways of training'.

Competition is about winning, outscoring, proving. Good game but no more than that. It brings about a competitor mindset, a fighting mindset. Once again, good game.

Martial on the other hand is a totally different field of operation and thus a totally different mindset.

The mindset is not how to win or outscore or prove. The mindset is to end. To finish or be finished. No games, no sparring, no round one and two and three. No fighting.

In the dark crazy world of human beings that equals in the past and now with guns and bombs meet, take out or be taken out.

In the past history of martial arts those who trained martially were preparing for those times and developing that mindset and that 'strength' of spirit. Between times they may have some competitions for fun. No comparison.

Funny how facing potential death can make you feel more alive. For the real warrior thus fighting and competition would be boring.

Just facing a bokken coming at you can make you feel more alive.

Then along comes Ueshiba and finds that in truth, if you approach the universal principles of love, of non-resistance, and other such spiritual virtues with a martial attitude, a martial discipline, then you can do the same as any warrior without harm. No fighting, no competitive mindset, nada.

'When he attacks he has already lost' There is no more martial than that in the whole universe. There's also no contest, no round two and no fight.

Regards.G.

As someone who has been punched in the face a couple of times..... Intentionally and non and a few of the other things mentioned by Dan . Having trained in other MA's where you learn by getting hit in face and other areas with punches and kicks and never even talking about the lethal stuff until u attain some advanced level. My original statement that " the first time more than half present aikido people were to get hit as a part of regular training, they would be gone" $$$$$ would leave dojo and and business down as a result, stands. Oh and of course let's not forget insurance liability for you legitimate dojo/ business owners.
In fact many people , maybe older , maybe tired of being punching bags come to aikido , " to not get hit any more" . Maybe they get suckered in by the "it's not fighting" line. ( that is still open for debate) Which is very very very hard to live up to, if u push the envelope on your training whatsoever .
Pretty much , Dan nailed it. Going " cold" , In other words , contolling or inhibiting the adrenaline dump is why people , whether they know it or not , train. As you get older the expenditure on your body gets too costly never mind losing or winning....
How real and competitive you want to get and where and how u train is entirely up to you.
Just don't pretend it's something else.

Andrew Bedford wrote: Hi all I'm up really late had some thoughts popping around my head on what these two are trying to teach and convey, hope you don't mind me sharing. Here they are please feel free to add or comment on anything I've written. Competitive:- Teaches 1. To win 2. To crush the opponent 3. At any cost ( within the rules) 4. This teaches one how to dominate the opponent 5. This proves Who is physically stronger. Non-competitive:- Teaches 1. To not lose ( so no one loses). 2. To take care of the opponent 3. So there is no cost to anyone (because there really are no rules) 4. This teaches one how to create harmony. 5. This proves it's not about strength. It's about spirit. In Budo Andy B

In my experience, training BJJ, after aikido: there are some people who focus on strength, and winning, in sparring; these people can maybe overwhelm beginners - but when they go with good blue belts (the first graded belt you get in BJJ), or above, their strength is nullified: they have to use technique, if they want to 'win'.

I treat sparring as a learning tool: I have no interest in 'winning' (getting a submission) - only leanring. The great thing about sparring, is that - as opposed to aikido, where someone who gives you whatever sort of resistance, or compliance, they choose to - when someone passes your defence, or armlocks, or chokes you, you can see for yourself where you need to improve; in aikido, someone - in an entirely theoretical setting - just says 'Don't leave an opening there, or someone could do A, B, or C.'; 'losing' (as you seem to view it) leaves you in no doubt as to what you need to improve.

It seems to me that it's a lot of aikidoka who have an ego, and a fear of 'losing' - and that's why they're so threatened by sparring, and hide behind this idea of non-competitiveness.
In BJJ, there's a saying: 'Leave your ego at the door - or somebody will take it from you.' - meaning, it doesn't matter if you get 'beaten' in sparring, because you don't base your self-worth on your place in a hierarchy - the kind of hierarchy you have in, say, aikido, where people line up according to their place in a hierarchy, and there are sempai, and kohai, and you have to respect the guy who's older, and the guy who's trained longer, and the guy who...etc.

There are a lot of smiles at the end of my BJJ classes; I can't say quite the same of the aikido classes i've been to in my time.

And regards point #2 on the non-competitive list:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idrk7sclp-o

Aikido is a great martial art for the egotistical: they never have their delusions challenged; dealing with 'defeat' every time you practice, as in sparring/randori, forces you to be humble.

As a generalized rule, it has been my experience that some of the most small-minded views of competition seem to come from people who have never participated in that type of environment at any high levels for any appreciable periods of time. I find this trend to be particularly acute in the Aikido world.

People who have (and do) participate in competitive areas at high levels for sustained periods of time typically have a perspective similar to the one that I posted in previously in this thread. Those of us who come from those backgrounds and are very active in Aikido take those important perspectives and use them within the paradigm of Aikido training.

Marc Abrams

Graham Christian wrote: Competition is about winning, outscoring, proving. Good game but no more than that. It brings about a competitor mindset, a fighting mindset. Once again, good game. Martial on the other hand is a totally different field of operation and thus a totally different mindset. The mindset is not how to win or outscore or prove. The mindset is to end. To finish or be finished. No games, no sparring, no round one and two and three. No fighting.

When Jigoro Kano created judo, he added a safe, non-compliant, 'competitive', method to test the techniques' effective; this was called randori.
Before judo, jujutsu was wholly 'martial', and competitons were frequently fatal.

Anyway, one day, the Tokyo police force held a contest between judo - people who trained in a 'sport', 'non-martial' fashion - and a jujutsu school - people who trained in a 'martial' way.
The judoka wiped the floor with the 'true martial artists', and the Tokyo Metropolitan Police had judo taight to their officers.

True story.

Then there's Brazilian Jiu Jitsu: the Gracies took on all-comers for decades, defeating people who trained compliantly in teh De4dly techniques.
You wouldn't last thirty seconds with a jiu-jitsuka: deal with it.

Marc Abrams wrote: As a generalized rule, it has been my experience that some of the most small-minded views of competition seem to come from people who have never participated in that type of environment at any high levels for any appreciable periods of time. I find this trend to be particularly acute in the Aikido world. People who have (and do) participate in competitive areas at high levels for sustained periods of time typically have a perspective similar to the one that I posted in previously in this thread. Those of us who come from those backgrounds and are very active in Aikido take those important perspectives and use them within the paradigm of Aikido training. Marc Abrams

I learned something in my first hour of judo, that I never learned in my first three years of aikido: how to relax my shoulders, and use technique; that's 'competition' for you.

I train with someone who has trained aikido for fifteen (15) years (and in a 'soft' style, at that): he just tenses his arms, and tries to do the technique; put him in a BJJ class, and he'll learn in less than fifteen days how ineffective that is; and therein lies the virtue of honest feedback.