MMA and Aiki Expo

Budd Yuhasz wrote: Ugh. I see too many people talking at each other, but not enough listening and talking to each other.....

Thanks, Budd, for the excellent post. That's what I was trying to say in my earlier postings in this thread. Unfortunately, sarcasm doesn't really translate too well on internet discussion boards.

It's easy to argue with internet people. With few exceptions, they're not "real" people: just a username and an avatar on the screen. Who really knows if anything they say is true or if they're just talking out of their ass. Most of us have not met one another in real life and probably never will, so there's that margain of safety. Sure, it's easy to do...we all have done it at one time or another. However, I genuinely wonder if we would have the same sorts of discussions and debates if they were in person?

Probably not.

Brian Dewey wrote: It's easy to argue with internet people. With few exceptions, they're not "real" people: just a username and an avatar on the screen. Who really knows if anything they say is true or if they're just talking out of their ass. Most of us have not met one another in real life and probably never will, so there's that margain of safety. Sure, it's easy to do...we all have done it at one time or another. However, I genuinely wonder if we would have the same sorts of discussions and debates if they were in person? Probably not.

Hello Brian,
You brought up a good point, but I think that part of it is wrong. I agree that it's too easy to "talk" on the Internet. People are usernames and avatars. Someone new to the forums won't know who to believe and who not to.

However, I think the forums have really changed the situation for meeting people. The chances of meeting someone now is, IMO, more likely than before the forums. And the reason is because the forums make things more curious, or interesting. I don't know of any other format (yet) that creates an air of curiosity when "talking" to a multitude of people. I've read Ledyard sensei's posts and given the chance, I will make one of his seminars one of these days. If not for the forums, I probably wouldn't have heard of half the people I have met.

I think the Aiki Expos were great and I wish I could have made one, but I also think that maybe they were too big. The AikiWeb Seminar was very good, though.

Give the tech some time and instead of word driven forums, we'll have video driven forums. That'll be something to see (pun intended). It'll be interesting to see what changes in the interaction arena.

Mark

A little late to the conversation but as to the question of why there are people who train in MMA on an AIkido board...maybe because they train or have trained in Aikido as well?

I'm fairly certain everyone that Ron listed, including myself, fall into that category. When conversations about MMA, "alive" training, active resistance, etc. come up, wouldn't it be better to have people versed in the terminology and training methods of both Aikido and those other things instead of just Aikido? As opposed to intellectual mind games and hypotheticals that bear no relation to how things actual play out in practice?

It would be one thing if Don, Michael, Kevin, myself, etc. came on here and attacked Aikido. As far as I can recall, none of us have done this. Instead, we've merely shared our personal experience of moving into an active resistance/"alive" training/MMA from an Aikido background, and how these new training methodologies have challenged the preconceived notions obtained from our Aikido practice. Hell, who wouldn't want to hear about these experiences, if they were serious, dedicated Aikidoka, trying to better their training and themselves? The only reason (I can conceive) a person wouldn't want to hear of these experiences is because it would lead them to challenge their own preconceived notions and assumptions about Aikido and physical conflict, and they are resistant to that challenge and, perhaps, change. It is much easier to stick with what one knows then be forced to change, adapt, and grow.

However, isn't that the whole point of Aikido? To blend, grow, adapt? To "fit in" with whatever comes your way? Ki musubi?

It's the situation I find myself in with training Aikido and MMA. "Alive" training has forced me to blend, grow, and adapt my Aikido, and my Aikido has effected how I look at MMA. And not in any base, technical, wrist locks v. double legs fashion, but in a more holistic, principle based manner. I find both styles of training valuable, and feel compelled to share that experience with others, as I would assume Don, Michael, Kevin, and the rest do as well. Mostly because, all of us have had very similar experiences when transitioning to an "alive"-based training methodology, one that really challenged our pre-conceived notions of a physical conflict situation. Along those lines, are we not ones to judge our previous training and training partners (Aikido) v. the ones we train with now (MMA)?

An analogy that I think is appropriate is the teenage-virgin idea of sex v. the adult personal experience of sex. The teenage-version will have all types of knowledge of what sex is about, will heard lots of stories, etc. and think they will know what sex is about. Compare that to the adult, who has had sex with multiple partners, and obviously has real, empirical knowledge of sex. If both of these people were to say...write a book, or teach a class about sex, who would you want to learn from?

Not that the teenager wouldn't have anything to offer, merely that it is only part of the picture, which is I think the viewpoint of many who have trained in Aikido and "alive" based training.

Lastly, it often seems to me that there is a resistance to anything coming from "the outside" into Aikido. Almost as if anything that needs to be learned or taught about Aikido as to emerge from Aikido. Is it that aspects of "alive" training don't have Japanese descriptions and the people don't wear skirts? Are the kamiza and dogi really what makes Aikido, Aikido or could people still do it wearing shorts and training outside in the dirt? In my personal experience, many people who train in Aikido romanticize and exaggerate the importance of all the trappings and reishiki of Aikido, when those things seem to be of little importance to me. Good company and hard training are all that is really needed to make Aikdio, Aikido. Funny thing is, once you get past the Tapout clothes and preponderance of goatees and tattoos, those are the same things you need for MMA.

I believe that the internet forum environment probably affords the opportunity for more boastful and disrespectful behavior than would be exhibited in person, by individuals inclined to that type of behavior in the first place. But for the sake of maintaining a comfortable environment with open expression, I believe it is a necessity to be tolerant. The level of anonymity which is present on such a forum, sometimes makes me wonder if a guy who is making outrageous, inflammatory claims is nothing more than an individual with a physical, emotional or mental disability expressing a desire to feel powerful, a feeling that has maybe been denied to him/her for their entire life. And then I have to question the appropriateness of my emotional response to such an individual. Anyhoo...

A thought, and then a question crossed my mind and I just wanted to put it out there:

I know that Morihei Ueshiba from his youth on was interested in different martial styles, and was proficient in several. I also believe I heard once that he was known to practice Tai Chi Chuan. My thought/question is, If given the opportunity at a time in his life when he would have been physically able, would he have been interested in training and/or competing in modern MMA, as we know it?

Michael Fooks wrote: It's possible that you don't get it perhaps? Roman didn't say he'd given up on Aikido, he said he'd given up on a certain aspect of Aikido. Are you suggesting that people can only be interested in Aikido for exactly the same reasons you are?

It's possible I don't get it. However I can certainly tell by the tone your question you don't either Go back and read my reponse in it's proper context. Putting words in my mouth does not work either. I am not suggesting anything other than perhaps responding to my post when your not centered does not come across very well.

Agreed. There's nothing "wrong' with it. It is what it is. Often the debate is over what it is and what it isn't good for rather than whether it's "broken". But often that point is lost on some. I suspect Roman understands this point very well but that you and he have a different idea as to what it's strengths and weaknesses are..

Better...

Do you know something about Romans Aikido practice that we don't? so Aikido's not an internal art? It's not a valid spiritual practice?

??? Again a careful reading of the posts in thier proper context will help you a great deal

Spoken like someone that's never been in an MMA gym for any length of time. Some may argue that there are elements of MMA training that build character very effectively. Maybe even more so than speaking in a foreign language while bowing because sensei says so (not that there's anything wrong with that, I just don't think it necessarily builds character) enlighten us Surely you didn't mean to be as insulting as you were by putting sport in scare quotes. Surely?

So says you. Sounds like you have some personal issues with Foreign Sensei's but hey that would be making an assumption on my part and taking your post out of context. At least one of us needs to stay centered in this exchange.LOL I don't need to repeat myself to you with regard to my experiance with MMA. The information is all there.

Humbly Bowing Down to You,

William Hazen

P.S. If you wish to continue this please PM me...

Keith Lee wrote: A little late to the conversation but as to the question of why there are people who train in MMA on an AIkido board...maybe because they train or have trained in Aikido as well? I'm fairly certain everyone that Ron listed, including myself, fall into that category. When conversations about MMA, "alive" training, active resistance, etc. come up, wouldn't it be better to have people versed in the terminology and training methods of both Aikido and those other things instead of just Aikido? As opposed to intellectual mind games and hypotheticals that bear no relation to how things actual play out in practice? It would be one thing if Don, Michael, Kevin, myself, etc. came on here and attacked Aikido. As far as I can recall, none of us have done this. Instead, we've merely shared our personal experience of moving into an active resistance/"alive" training/MMA from an Aikido background, and how these new training methodologies have challenged the preconceived notions obtained from our Aikido practice. Hell, who wouldn't want to hear about these experiences, if they were serious, dedicated Aikidoka, trying to better their training and themselves? The only reason (I can conceive) a person wouldn't want to hear of these experiences is because it would lead them to challenge their own preconceived notions and assumptions about Aikido and physical conflict, and they are resistant to that challenge and, perhaps, change. It is much easier to stick with what one knows then be forced to change, adapt, and grow. However, isn't that the whole point of Aikido? To blend, grow, adapt? To "fit in" with whatever comes your way? Ki musubi? It's the situation I find myself in with training Aikido and MMA. "Alive" training has forced me to blend, grow, and adapt my Aikido, and my Aikido has effected how I look at MMA. And not in any base, technical, wrist locks v. double legs fashion, but in a more holistic, principle based manner. I find both styles of training valuable, and feel compelled to share that experience with others, as I would assume Don, Michael, Kevin, and the rest do as well. Mostly because, all of us have had very similar experiences when transitioning to an "alive"-based training methodology, one that really challenged our pre-conceived notions of a physical conflict situation. Along those lines, are we not ones to judge our previous training and training partners (Aikido) v. the ones we train with now (MMA)? An analogy that I think is appropriate is the teenage-virgin idea of sex v. the adult personal experience of sex. The teenage-version will have all types of knowledge of what sex is about, will heard lots of stories, etc. and think they will know what sex is about. Compare that to the adult, who has had sex with multiple partners, and obviously has real, empirical knowledge of sex. If both of these people were to say...write a book, or teach a class about sex, who would you want to learn from? Not that the teenager wouldn't have anything to offer, merely that it is only part of the picture, which is I think the viewpoint of many who have trained in Aikido and "alive" based training. Lastly, it often seems to me that there is a resistance to anything coming from "the outside" into Aikido. Almost as if anything that needs to be learned or taught about Aikido as to emerge from Aikido. Is it that aspects of "alive" training don't have Japanese descriptions and the people don't wear skirts? Are the kamiza and dogi really what makes Aikido, Aikido or could people still do it wearing shorts and training outside in the dirt? In my personal experience, many people who train in Aikido romanticize and exaggerate the importance of all the trappings and reishiki of Aikido, when those things seem to be of little importance to me. Good company and hard training are all that is really needed to make Aikdio, Aikido. Funny thing is, once you get past the Tapout clothes and preponderance of goatees and tattoos, those are the same things you need for MMA.

Outstanding post...and I agree 100% with a few exceptions

One: The assumptions about Aikido not adapting to outside influances unless they come from inside Aikido is simply not true in all cases. Our Aikido goes to great lenghts to learn from other Arts how to make Aikido better.

Two: I have extensive experiance with "alive" based training and for the most part they mirror yours However the Differance with us is that it comes at a much later stage in the training process. Some may consider this a flaw and there seem to be allot of Aikido Dojos who never progress to alive based training so it's a valid criticism. Our Aikido has two kinds of students...One is experianced in other Arts the other is not. If I see a problem with Dojos it's that they have to train to the lowest common denominator as a baseline. This can be frustrating for someone who is used to more advanced levels of training. I think this is a major flaw with Aikido. We address it in our style as do some others like Tomiki, Shodokan, and Iwama...Aikido for the most part needs to adapt it's syllubus to make it more alive without compromising it's responsibility to it's core set of technical principles, and the complete newbie.

Hopefully your excellent post will lead to a great exchange of ideas in this regard.

William Hazen

Keith Lee wrote: ...intellectual mind games and hypotheticals that bear no relation to how things actual play out in practice?

Idle games are idle games, whether physical or intellectual ...

Keith Lee wrote: ... these new training methodologies have challenged the preconceived notions obtained from our Aikido practice. Hell, who wouldn't want to hear about these experiences, if they were serious, dedicated Aikidoka, trying to better their training and themselves? ,,, Along those lines, are we not ones to judge our previous training and training partners (Aikido) v. the ones we train with now (MMA)?

Your post seems well-intended and heartfelt -- but it misses the mark. You are NOT best positioned to judge -- precisely because you seem NOT to have found that Aikido offers what you want. Nor does the fact that you did not find it mean that others have not, nor that what Aikido was lacking (from your perspective) is necessarily to be found in MMA. As to the latter I would not presume to judge. Since you have not found what you sought in Aikido, the plain fact may be that you want something that is not meant to be sought through Aikido. Aikido is marvelously diverse, but is not and should not try to be all things to all people.

Keith Lee wrote: An analogy that I think is appropriate is the teenage-virgin idea of sex v. the adult personal experience of sex. ... Compare that to the adult, who has had sex with multiple partners, and obviously has real, empirical knowledge of sex. ... who would you want to learn from?

So, one should learn every conceivable form of sex for one's own satisfaction from a paid professional who has lots of expereince ?

The alternative image is not the teenage virgin but a mutually caring exploration discovering its role in a proper marriage, for the benefit of another, not merely for one's own interest. Observed too often in the breach, perhaps, but ideals are like that. Maybe MMA can provide that, but from what I have seen of it, that seems the exception to its intended purpose. The purpose of Aikido is closer in kind to that of marriage than of escapades of fighting, or other words beginning with "f"... and ending with "-ing"

I think your analogy (perhaps not intended that way) hits on a similar diversion of interest in WHAT Aikido seeks compared with other arts, and particularly the explicit combat and sports arts. If MMA in your analogy is about ever more spectacular and diverse achievements (in hot sex per your anology -a sad image, in my opinion) -- Aikido is analogous to building more solid marriages (musubi - in both senses, connection and creativity), and thereby making the participants stronger individuals, in the process of making them also more connected to one another, and stronger still BECAUSE of their ability to connect more creatively.

Marriage definitely involves sex as a defining characteristic and necessary means, but it is a means, not an end, and it is about far, far more than that. Martial spectacle is no more redeeming than the more titillating kind. Aikido necessarily involves violence and requires martially honest encounters, but not in the sense of mere sport, at best -- or combat porn, at worst.

Erick Mead wrote: Idle games are idle games, whether physical or intellectual ... Your post seems well-intended and heartfelt -- but it misses the mark. You are NOT best positioned to judge -- precisely because you seem NOT to have found that Aikido offers what you want. Nor does the fact that you did not find it mean that others have not, nor that what Aikido was lacking (from your perspective) is necessarily to be found in MMA. As to the latter I would not presume to judge. Since you have not found what you sought in Aikido, the plain fact may be that you want something that is not meant to be sought through Aikido. Aikido is marvelously diverse, but is not and should not try to be all things to all people. So, one should learn every conceivable form of sex for one's own satisfaction from a paid professional who has lots of expereince ? The alternative image is not the teenage virgin but a mutually caring exploration discovering its role in a proper marriage, for the benefit of another, not merely for one's own interest. Observed too often in the breach, perhaps, but ideals are like that. Maybe MMA can provide that, but from what I have seen of it, that seems the exception to its intended purpose. The purpose of Aikido is closer in kind to that of marriage than of escapades of fighting, or other words beginning with "f"... and ending with "-ing" I think your analogy (perhaps not intended that way) hits on a similar diversion of interest in WHAT Aikido seeks compared with other arts, and particularly the explicit combat and sports arts. If MMA in your analogy is about ever more spectacular and diverse achievements (in hot sex per your anology -a sad image, in my opinion) -- Aikido is analogous to building more solid marriages (musubi - in both senses, connection and creativity), and thereby making the participants stronger individuals, in the process of making them also more connected to one another, and stronger still BECAUSE of their ability to connect more creatively. Marriage definitely involves sex as a defining characteristic and necessary means, but it is a means, not an end, and it is about far, far more than that. Martial spectacle is no more redeeming than the more titillating kind. Aikido necessarily involves violence and requires martially honest encounters, but not in the sense of mere sport, at best -- or combat porn, at worst.

Testify!!!

Well said. I agree completely.

hmm...Budd makes the virgin analogy to point out that it's not useful to get an opinion from someone on a topic that they have no direct experience of. And now we stretch that metaphor beyond belief to point out the monogomous sanctity of Aikido in comparison to the slapper ho of MMA.

No, no smug superiority in the Aikido community at all.....

Hey Michael...I wasn't even going to go there...I don't think it's worth it...

B,
R

I would do anything for love, but I just wont do that.

Michael Fooks wrote: hmm...Budd makes the virgin analogy to point out that it's not useful to get an opinion from someone on a topic that they have no direct experience of. And now we stretch that metaphor beyond belief to point out the monogomous sanctity of Aikido in comparison to the slapper ho of MMA.

Well, since you say so ...

I did not suggest the analogy, I just followed it to its conclusion. Last I looked Aikido had moral and personal development as a significant part of its stated purpose; MMA -- not so much -- if there is any overarching moral principle involved in the movement (apart from the minimal one of not getting beaten) let's just say it is not a notable part of the marketing plan so far.

I made no judgment on the point. Almost anything that is real is good in its proper context. Many things are good, not all things are good in the same way and some good things may be bad out of a proper context. Context matters.

The moral judgment you complain about was contained in the analogy first presented. I simply applied that fully to the context to suggest that the implied criticism cuts more deeply in reverse.

Aikido training does not per se result in vain and virginal ignorance about violence remedied only by teaching from someone who analogously plumbs the figurative depths of orgiastic debauchery to understand sexuality. Bad MMA training might go there. Good MMA would not.

Bad aiki bunny Aikido training fails the other way, and might require something more like that kind of bitter medicine as a purgative. The point is merely that traditionally sober and pedestrian aikido training is not so uninformed as to the nature and consequences of violence and its uses through their practice as the implied condescension by virtue of MMA's "worldly ways" contained in the original analogy.

That is all. A little respect all around is fine thing.

Okay -- so considering my background and first teacher I realize I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate here, but I can't resist the urge to ask. "What exactly does it mean when someone says they train MMA?"

The name a lone, Mixed Martial Arts, suggests someone who practices more than one martial art, of their choice, and combine the two. There's really nothing new about this. One of Yoshinkan Aikido's earliest American practitioners, for example, was combing his karate skills and aikido skills, as learned from Gozo Shioda Sensei, in the mid to late 1950's and created his own hybrid system. Wouldn't that be considered MMA by definition?

I think the only real difference these days is that MMA has become a sport competition where folks who study multiple disciplines met in a ring and beat the snot out of each other making it a sport, more so than a martial art.

In my view, MMA is not a martial art. Rather is represents a person who studies multiple arts and competes in competitions against others doing the same thing. So when someone says to me "I practice MMA" I typically ask, "which arts". Kind like someone saying "I practice aikijujutsu". That really doesn't tell you much of anything. Like saying, "I drive an automobile".

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Steven Miranda wrote: Okay -- so considering my background and first teacher I realize I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate here, but I can't resist the urge to ask. "What exactly does it mean when someone says they train MMA?"

Well, at one time, in the early days in the UFC, it referred to events hosted by the Gracie family pitting differnt arts against each other, but since then it has been standardized into two areas: Standup and ground. Standup conisists of Thai Boxing and mayvbe some Western boxing, so kicking, punching, knees and elbows. Ground means submission grappling based mainly on Brazillian Jujitsu and related systems. There are schools that teach that material and prepare fighters for professional events like the UFC; one such school is in my area. One of their guys was in the UFC within the last few months. However, last year, they rented the place out for a seminar with Sifu Francis Fong, so not every MMAer is a loudmouth who wants nothing to do with other systems. (Of course, CNYMMA is run by Sifu Kevin Seaman's son, and Sifu Kevin was trained by Sifu Francis Fong and Sifu Dan Inosanto. No surprises there!)

So that is what "MMA" means; quibbling over semantics won't help matters. I don't have term for people who train in multiple arts except "martial artists." And I think the martial arts marketplace has enough room for MMA and "traditional" Aikido -- different strokes for differnt folks.

Steven Miranda wrote: Okay -- so considering my background and first teacher I realize I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate here, but I can't resist the urge to ask. "What exactly does it mean when someone says they train MMA?"

It ain't no MMA if ya'll ain't wearing no spandex and Tap-Out (TM) shirt (chuckles)

Boon.

What Boon said.
And also what Michael said - different strokes for different folks for sure.
As to what MMA is - it is not just cross training in different arts. Crosstraining in tai chi and Aikido does not make you an MMA er. It has meaning beyond the literal meaning of the words. compare for example with Kung fu which I understand means something like hard work? Does that mean a hard day in the garden makes me a kung fu practioner? Or karate, which means (today) empty hand. Does that mean if I do anything without tools I'm practicing karate?

No because it has meaning outside of the literal translation. So with MMA. It is an accepted term which refers to a specific sport and grouping of rulesets. It can also be used to refer to the training that may lead to participation in that sport, training in the methodologies that have shown to be effective. Those methodologies are continuing to evolve but at heart are a combination of techniques that can be seen in muay thai, boxing, wrestling, BJJ, Judo and maybe a bit of Sambo.

Eric, I'm not sure you realise how metaphor works, it's a limited comparison. Because someone compares two things in one area for purposes of illustration does not mean you can compare them in all areas.

Aikido had moral and personal development as a significant part of its stated purpose; MMA -- not so much -- if there is any overarching moral principle involved in the movement (apart from the minimal one of not getting beaten) let's just say it is not a notable part of the marketing plan so far.

You see this kind of proves Budd's point in my mind. The implication here is that Aikido is good for personal and moral development and MMA is only about wanton violence. It is only someone that has no direct experience of it (back to the virgin analogy) that would make this claim. Those that *do* have experience know that there's no way you train MMA without significant advances in character and personal development. But it doesn't come through waxing philosophical at the end of the class, it comes as a direct result of the training itself. Which is a suspect how it used to be with TMAs as well.

I've seen great character development take place in Aikido, in BJJ and in MMA. One doesn't have a monopoloy on it just because it's on the brochure...

Michael Fooks wrote: I've seen great character development take place in Aikido, in BJJ and in MMA. One doesn't have a monopoloy on it just because it's on the brochure...

Zing! Nicely put, Mr. Fooks

If it's about character development, then I thinkit depends mostly on the character and there desire to develop. Not so much on the vehicle used to develop. If one wanted to develop there character, or sense of spirituality for that matter, it would be just as easy to progress in those areas doing Aikido, Gardening, MMA, BJJ, Fly Fishing, Chopping heads on a battlefield, etc. What is the practitioner's intention for their practice?

I have known individuals with wonderful characters who have deep wells of spirituality and have never felt the desire or inclination to step into a dojo or other martial arts training hall. Sometimes I have to stop and question my own motives for practice, make sure they are pure in nature and not tainted by fear before I continue. For me, it would be harder to check those motives if the style I studied was more focused on damaging or killing my opponent.

Anybody see Karate Kid? Who would you rather hang out with, Mr. Miyagi and Daniel-san (character) or the Cobra-kai (in need of character)?

Charactor Development is a cornerstone in a strong ethical and moral foundation....

Aikido's ethical foundation lies in the traditional Martial Disciplines and some would suggest certain Japanese religeous beliefs

MMA's origins may be the same in a sense but it is a professional sport and as such it's overall goals are a bit different

Apples and oranges...though both may develop good charactor One is about harmony the other winning...

That in my opinion is a distinct differance and makes comparing one as better than the other silly...

William Hazen

certainly they have different approaches. But there's some interesting things coming up in this discussion I'd like to give my view on.

MMA does have a professional sport aspect to it for sure. But it's not like the only guys training it are the guys you see on the UFC. There are plenty of "hobbyists" involved who may never have an actual MMA match per se. In 5 years time those hobbyists will be the majority.

One is about harmony the other winning...

I find this interesting. Because it occurs to me that Aikido, the way it is trained in the vast majority of dojo, operates a training fiction that ensures that nage always wins. Whereas in MMA/BJJ you "suffer" loss after loss after loss to progress. In fact you have to let go of the idea of "must win" very early in your training if you are going to make it past the first six months. So in many ways those arts taught me much much more about the ability to shelve competitive spirit, about how to focus on other things than my own victor and about taking my ego out of the equation than I ever learned in Aikido. Aikido possibly taught me more about the idea of "blending" although it's hard to say because those lessons are also very clearly in BJJ so I'm not sure I wouldn't have picked them up from there if I hadn't already trained Aikido.

Sometimes I have to stop and question my own motives for practice, make sure they are pure in nature and not tainted by fear before I continue.

I'm interested by this William. Are you saying that motives that involve fear are not good ones?

Michael Fooks wrote: certainly they have different approaches. But there's some interesting things coming up in this discussion I'd like to give my view on. MMA does have a professional sport aspect to it for sure. But it's not like the only guys training it are the guys you see on the UFC. There are plenty of "hobbyists" involved who may never have an actual MMA match per se. In 5 years time those hobbyists will be the majority. I find this interesting. Because it occurs to me that Aikido, the way it is trained in the vast majority of dojo, operates a training fiction that ensures that nage always wins. Whereas in MMA/BJJ you "suffer" loss after loss after loss to progress. In fact you have to let go of the idea of "must win" very early in your training if you are going to make it past the first six months. So in many ways those arts taught me much much more about the ability to shelve competitive spirit, about how to focus on other things than my own victor and about taking my ego out of the equation than I ever learned in Aikido. Aikido possibly taught me more about the idea of "blending" although it's hard to say because those lessons are also very clearly in BJJ so I'm not sure I wouldn't have picked them up from there if I hadn't already trained Aikido.

So you like apples as opposed to oranges fair enough...How can you extrapolate this to mean that oranges are somehow lacking or infer that some Aikidoka feel MMA is lacking because it's goals are different....

Harmony is about blending and attempting to rid yourself of the duality of "victory or defeat" A Nage is only one part of this equation... he/she needs to the help of an Uke to achieve this Harmony. Any Uke that needs to "win" or any Nage that needs to "win" cannot effectively practice Aikido. Both must play thier half in order to achieve the whole which is harmony. You must (as we say in another spiritual practice "Surrender to win")

I think Shoji Nishio put it best about Aikido and it's one of the reasons I choose to learn and practice it.

"People who practice Aikido, should be recognized as the best artists in the world. It's easy to create something good, with good materials, however, we perform a Martial Art that is designed to destroy and kill people, which is something people dislike.
With these poor marterials, we cultivate a society of friendship and build peaceful minds that people desire.

Every Aikido technique has that mind/heart."

In no way shape or form does MMA have a similiar mindset...It does share some of the same training values but it's about the simple duality of victory or defeat. Does that mean that Aikido or MMA is better???

Nope...To think that way is to fall into yet another of the same mind traps I am trying to free myself from through hard practice thus...

better/worse = victory/defeat

this homey don't want to play the fool no more...

Another great analogy I along time ago from an old timer was. "Dummy (me back then)...Life is a smorgasboard of good food with plenty to eat for everybody But some dudes like pickles, and some like peanut butter. The key is enjoy the foods you like and don't stop folks from eating the foods they like just because you don't like them."

Bowing down now...

William Hazen

Michael Fooks wrote: Are you saying that motives that involve fear are not good ones?

While I acknowledge that fear is a powerful motivational force, when I have chosen a course of action based on fear, in hindsight I usually wish I had chosen otherwise.

In my experience, fear usually stems from a belief that you will lose something that you have, or not get something that you need (or want). This kind of thinking leads to a form of self imposed mental slavery. It is capable of prohibiting one from taking the proper course of action or taking no action whatsoever.

There is a story in the Hagakure about a Lord of a comparably small holding who was killed by an assasin sent by a competitive, neighboring lord. The lord who had sent the assasin was a much more powerful individual who had in his service around 1,000 samurai, compared to a much smaller number retained by the now deceased lord. The majority of the samurai decided that it would be foolish to throw their lives away in an attempt to avenge their dead lord. But one of the samurai ran straight to the compound of the lord who had sent the assasin and engaged his 1,000 samurai in combat. He didn't kill the lord, but he did kill many samurai before he was cut down. Certainly more than the guys who did not go at all. And it is theorized more than he would have had he sat around for a few days and tried to come up with a better strategy. It is said that this is where the saying "stamp quick and pass through iron" originated. Meaning if rather than be blinded by fear or be scared or worry about the final outcome, if one simply takes the correct action without hesitation he will be more effective than if he waits, or does nothing at all.

So... when I practice Aikido, I don't want to be coming from a place of "I'd better get real good at twisting wrists and throwing people, so i don't get my ass kicked! (fear-based motivation). I'd much rather approach my training with an attitude of "The light of the world shines forth from me, I am helping to make myself and the world better by this practice. I am helping to usher in a new age, I am performing a prayer with my body that will help to open the rock door of heaven and begin an age of enlightenment and prosperity led by Amaterasu o mi Kami" (positive action).

William Prusner wrote: Anybody see Karate Kid? Who would you rather hang out with, Mr. Miyagi and Daniel-san (character) or the Cobra-kai (in need of character)?

None of them probably, but never in the character of a guy who claims to be peaceful and ethical but goes full-contact in a point sparring tournament.

Anyway, if aikido claims to be a tool for character developement, can someone explain me why the amount of politics, ego, abuse, passive-agressiveness and closed mindedness we find in aikido world?

William Hazen wrote: So you like apples as opposed to oranges fair enough...How can you extrapolate this to mean that oranges are somehow lacking or infer that some Aikidoka feel MMA is lacking because it's goals are different.... William Hazen

I read this thread and think about posting, but then I read one of your replies, find myself agreeing with it, and drop the thought. I couldn't have said things any better. One of these days, I'll have to get over to your side of the US and visit.

Mark

Michael Fooks wrote: No because it has meaning outside of the literal translation. So with MMA. It is an accepted term which refers to a specific sport and grouping of rulesets. ... Eric, I'm not sure you realise how metaphor works, it's a limited comparison. Because someone compares two things in one area for purposes of illustration does not mean you can compare them in all areas.

Is that not the function of aikido? -- To take the expressed hostile intent just exactly where it was headed but just THAT much further forward/back/off-side where they lose control of the intended meaning of that action? So it is in extending a metaphor. Truth is what it is, not what we intend it to be -- unless, of course, you are actually Stephen Colbert, in disguise.

Michael Fooks wrote: The implication here is that Aikido is good for personal and moral development and MMA is only about wanton violence.

Actually, my point was that if you take the implied accusation of your point and turn it around it becomes the merely reverse accusation, and that while there are legitimate differences in position, neither argument tending to the polar extremities is in fact useful or actually true. In medio veritas.

MMA's intensity (in what the Marine Corps sometimes calls "adversative" training) is without a doubt proper misogi through shugyo. Misogi shugyo is a powerful teacher whatever its source or particular method. The desire for that legitimate "worn out" palpable feeling is, I hazard a guess, a predominant part if the appeal of MMA. But shugyo is both to remove the slack and polish the spirit. I would say, more charitably, that MMA and most competitive arts, lean one way on that spectrum, and aikido leans the other way.

Hazarding an overgeneralization closer to the reality than our dueling methaporical battle -- the misogi shugyo of MMA seems to emphasize toughness of physique, suppleness of response, and sharpening an instinctive will to dominate. There are mental well as physical components, and necessarily rational and irrational components, to the training.

The misogi shugyo of aikido is also physical as well as mental -- but in a different way. There is a focus on making the instinctive will MORE accommodating to the movement (and inherent shape) of attack while ultimately frustrating its intended objective, rather than dominating or resistive to the action of the attack per se, honing awareness in connection and sharpening the criticality of responses to that connected physical movement.

The "worn out" feel of aikido at the end of good training seem more akin (to me anyway) to that of the surfer (whose principles are actually much in common), drained physically yes ( though less so in most cases that a MMA bout or even judo randori) but also drained mentally. The mental component of this shugyo is distinctively different from that of competitive arts. Holding awareness open, and seeking and maintaining connection with intensity, finding and trying to eliminate reactive force-on-force contests.

I have no doubt they overlap in their intedned and practical coverage, but they are different in emphasis and focus.

Michael Fooks wrote: One doesn't have a monopoly on it just because it's on the brochure...

Only the rubes believe a sales pitch ...