aikido vs MMA figther

I am not a eastern scholar, but I believe most eastern philosophies are based on the concept of nondualism,

I think this is key to the understanding of aikido and life in general.

Aikido and or better yet, Aikibudo, is about unifying, therefore, at least philosphically, budo is inclusive of all.

Stripping away labels and social constructs such as "doctor" and you simply have a person that is caring for another person.

The perspective all depends on how much you are willing to limit your paradigm of view of the things that you observe.

whoaaa, too much coffee tonight!

Buck, what is your definition of Budo or budoka? How do you decide what to include or exclude?

How do you know when you are viewing a budoka?

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Budo has more to do with the philosophical and spiritual aspects of practice and living than the physical.

It seems to me, if I may be permitted the hubris, that the Budo/Bujutsu divide is largely a product of the western mind.

Is The Life Giving Sword a Budo or Bujutsu book?

Practical advice on winning sword fights that talks mostly about Zen.

agreed Alex, I believe the divide to be more a product of our western mind.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: I am not a eastern scholar, but I believe most eastern philosophies are based on the concept of nondualism, I think this is key to the understanding of aikido and life in general. Aikido and or better yet, Aikibudo, is about unifying, therefore, at least philosphically, budo is inclusive of all. Stripping away labels and social constructs such as "doctor" and you simply have a person that is caring for another person. The perspective all depends on how much you are willing to limit your paradigm of view of the things that you observe. whoaaa, too much coffee tonight! Buck, what is your definition of Budo or budoka? How do you decide what to include or exclude? How do you know when you are viewing a budoka?

Kevin, my response isn't just an inclusive response to you.

We often use words too liberally to fit our own personal definitions. It really deflates the meaning of words.

Pls, pardon my ignorance on Subjectivism, and Metaphysics. I don't see paring philosophy and the word inclusive fit together. Cause when I call and say my house is on fire, I get what is commonly known as fighter fighters; guys who use water hoses, wearing special gear, who try and put the fire out and not MMA guy who wants to prove MMA is better than Aikido.

If their are people in MMA who consider themselves budoka's, or what they do as a Koryu, or Gendai, or think they are Knights, swash buckling Pirates, or Robinhood's Merry men, am not in the business to change their minds.

So then variables exist that many MMA are not trained for because they train to fight in a highly controlled fight and specialized environment. Does this make them ineffective in the street, no just not as well equipped to deal with street variables that unlike a ring fight are far more unpredictable. In the ring you don't worry about someone threatening or trying to stab you a knife. You just have to worry about not getting hit where your K.O.ed, giving up your back, going the distance, fighting your fight and not his etc. All the things inclusive in ring fights. In the ring there are state officials, refs, judges and doctors. You wear a cup, a mouth piece, gloves, you wear no shirt or shoes, just skin tight briefs, or a gi. You know who you will be fighting, how much he weighs, his height, his build, his fighting styles, where and when you will fight, etc. You don't get any of that on the street.

Apples and oranges, Aikido and MMA. One isn't a ring fighter, the other is. Thus, the approaches, purpose, and circumstances are different ranging from narrowly to widely. Instead of saying the what ifs of Aikido and MMA-a pro-fighters like this and hundreds of other threads, why not say what if your car jacked at gun point as you get out of the car then what options and training does Aikido provide vs. that of pro MMA?

I prefer to use the word inclusive with numbers or in terms of language.

I still say against to train in the dojoimaging your uke is Thiago Alves I say use a mock stun gun. Or a jo, or bokken. Then the question is what would MMA do against that...sorry unfair question there are rules against the use of weapons in MMA/the ring. Weapons training offense or defense was never in the MMA/BJJ plan. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Douglas Fajardo wrote: , I answer my question what about you?

I ask myself this question time and again. It doesn't even have to be Thiago. Realistically, an experienced MMA fighter can kick my butt. These guys train day in and out to fight. On the other hand, I squeeze in whatever time left out of work and family to practice.

However, I strongly feel that anybody who successfully integrates mind/body/spirit with his/her chosen art (aikdio, karate,etc) should be able to overcome an MMA challenge. But that is easier said than done given the multitude of distractions each of us encounter daily.

Its not impossible though..which is why it remains to be my aspiration

What you have to ask yourself is can an mma fighter fight three or more in a situation outside the ring? ......

I know plenty of doormen who have that ability and are fine when it comes to one.... but when it come to three or more with wolf pack mentality they go down just as quick as anyone else!!
I know 'cause I was one of the guys who had to jump in to save the poor bugger from taking a nasty beating..... I took some damage too but he was in a worse state than me! ..... this same guy is 6' and more and built like the proverbial outhouse..... does judo, kick boxing, jujutsu and krav magra and is an all rounder.....
I'm just a 55 year old cabbie who happened to be there having a chin wag with the door personnel that you get to know..... when out of nowhere it all kicks off!! Believe me when I say that when you get into melee's like this, I don't care how good you are at A B or C you will not get away Scott Free and it only hurts afterwards!!

This aint the first time I have had to deal with real life nasties like this.... It happens in my job..... goes with the territory as it does with doormen......
Yes I did take him and myself to the local A & E to get glued up!! Wonders of new technology.....!!
And yes we were there the next night having a chin wag and licking our wounds!! Goes with the territory!!

Guess what!.... it all lasted about 10 - 15 seconds and then the bloody sods did a runner!!

Tony

Who ones attacker is and what style they fight with is irrelevant in the practice of aikido. If you're a solid aikidoka, then that's all that should matter in a fight against anyone. Am I relaxed? Am I extending ki? am I centered under and moving from one point? Am I keeping weight underside? If you can answer yes to all these questions then no other external variables should matter. No matter how stong someones punch is, it doesn't matter if you're getting off the line of impact and entering. No matter how big someone is, if you take their one point, then they can be thrown like anyone else. Train hard and believe in your art and yourself.

Philip Burgess wrote: I still say against to train in the dojoimaging your uke is Thiago Alves I say use a mock stun gun. Or a jo, or bokken. Then the question is what would MMA do against that...sorry unfair question there are rules against the use of weapons in MMA/the ring. Weapons training offense or defense was never in the MMA/BJJ plan. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Helio Gracie would beg to differ with you on the fact that weapons are not taught in the BJJ plan. He spends a great deal of time in his very expensive hard covered book on BJJ discussing weapons and common attacks. All high level BJJ instructors I have been with discuss weapons and common "stand up attacks".

The whole issue of "parity" usually comes up when someone debates the whole ground fighting issue. That is, stuff like well I'd just hit him in the crotch or eye gouge.

Parity is parity. If you can do these things, so can I. You have a stun gun...I get one too, then lets see how well we do once we have parity.

We've been through this before so no real need to go there again. You've made up your mind about what neat boxes things fit in. BJJ in this box, Aikido in that box, Ring Fighters can't be Budoka, etc, etc.

It is a shame that you limit yourself to not see the potential that other things can offer.

One question that I hope you can answer, or will take the time.

Would you consider ME a budoka? That is, based on what you know about me?

For me MMA is a form of yoga or moving meditation. It is a chance to clear my mind and flow with and shape the events moving around me. Sometimes I gain control and can shape this force to my will, other times I am force to move with it, accepting it's consequences and designs.

I willingly forfeit my life every time I spar (metaphysically). This is not a fight with rules, this is a focus on a subset of an engagement that is life or death.

I teach my students how to do dirty things. I would say that my 1 year judo students know more nasty things then most 25+ year traditional martial arts instructors. More so then that however, they know the stress of conflict and how to engage in an advantageous way. Even when the odds are stacked against them.

We do spar 3 on 1, 2 on 1, and 1 on 1. We spar with handicaps, such as being limited to one arm or your opponent not wearing a gi. We spar allowing all sorts of non competition legal techniques. We spar starting from the most disastrous positions.

I am 100% confident that I am preparing these students to protect themselves.

On a side note, I did beat 3 of them at once in a grappling match last friday.

Who studies just one martial art anyway? Most of the martial arts I know are pretty mixed...

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Helio Gracie would beg to differ with you on the fact that weapons are not taught in the BJJ plan. He spends a great deal of time in his very expensive hard covered book on BJJ discussing weapons and common attacks. All high level BJJ instructors I have been with discuss weapons and common "stand up attacks". The whole issue of "parity" usually comes up when someone debates the whole ground fighting issue. That is, stuff like well I'd just hit him in the crotch or eye gouge. Parity is parity. If you can do these things, so can I. You have a stun gun...I get one too, then lets see how well we do once we have parity. We've been through this before so no real need to go there again. You've made up your mind about what neat boxes things fit in. BJJ in this box, Aikido in that box, Ring Fighters can't be Budoka, etc, etc. It is a shame that you limit yourself to not see the potential that other things can offer. One question that I hope you can answer, or will take the time. Would you consider ME a budoka? That is, based on what you know about me?

Kevin, fat men don't wrestle Hyenas the shoot them.

Unless you pour a liquid in a container it makes a mess and goes everywhere. You should not mix bleach and ammonia keep them in separate containers. Watching a basketball game in a bar when a player scores I don't yell "touch down!" If I did I really look stupid. There are all kinds of doctors, if I am physically hurt the doctor I want to see needs to be one of medicine and not philosophy or law. If there where no banks on a river would it still be a river? Just because it is water is it safe to drink; water, water every where and not a drop to drink. The sky isn't the sea, even though we use poetic license to create that metaphor.

It is not a matter of "neat little boxes" that thing fit into, it is a matter of differences. Just like I am different from you. I am straight that doesn't make me gay. A broom is different then a shovel. It is sad that out of a matter of convenience in your discussion you would use that old worn out and dated contrived nonsense of boxing me by referring to me liking things in "neat little boxes." Dude let's work a new angle.

When was that book you mentioned published? If your right then why aren't guns or weapons, even mock ones allowed in the ring. Like I don't see them fighting against a pugle sticks in the ring.

Like I said before the sad thing about many MMA fans etc. is the increasing lack of knowing history and appreciation of origin and culture. The tendency see the world only and singly through MMA. Kevin you who know better, you shouldn't perpetuate that disservice to them like in your reply. Get the truth out, teach them. Don't isolate them.

MMA is about challenging and Aikido to a cockfight, but Aikido hasn't taken the challenge and now we have millions of threads whining about it. Aikido like MMA is only as good a the person and how well they train. Aikido has its advantages and its design doesn't lend to sport fighting. Training to fight a MMA in Aikido is realistic, but highly improbable for 99.9% of Aikido. Most Aikidoka's have a higher probability of fighting of a dog attack then fighting professionally in an MMA cockfight. In fact an Aikidoka is more likely to get into a street fight then a pro MMA cockfight. Those Aikidoka who do fight or roll on the mat in pro or non-pro MMA fight choose to do so rather then ever encounter each other for a fight by chance on the street.

These threads are dead and pointlessly beating a dead horse by this boob (by replying to) out of boredom and stagnation.

If may contribute...

Aikido is a way. MMA is a sport... never confuse the two. You'll grow old and have a good life if you figure it out! ;0)

A cryptic response?

Not if you get it...I don't , but I'm starting too.

Hint... if someone reeeeeaaaaly wants to harm you all the octagon training in the world will amount to squat.

If you can come to terms with that reality your really on your way to becoming something other than for want of a better word a statistic.

Respectfully

Peter

Phillip Wrote:

It is not a matter of "neat little boxes" that thing fit into, it is a matter of differences. Just like I am different from you. I am straight that doesn't make me gay. A broom is different then a shovel. It is sad that out of a matter of convenience in your discussion you would use that old worn out and dated contrived nonsense of boxing me by referring to me liking things in "neat little boxes." Dude let's work a new angle.

But a gay person is still a person, a human being. One that gets up, puts on his shoes just like you. He has feellings, eats, breathes, and sleeps just like a straight person.

This may seem trivial, but this is my whole point. We are simply not learning the lessons of aikido if we form attachments and label things (dualism).

By labeling a person as being "gay" or "straight" we essentially establish boundaries or distinctions. We start seeing things based on the labels that we place on them and that limits what else we can see.

Fundamentalist thinking moves away from this way of thinking though. A fundamentalist mindset reduces things to what one preceives is "fundamental". that is "Straight/Gay" "morale/immorale". "black/white", MMA/Aikido."

The biggest fear of fundamentalism is "letting go" of these attachments or labels. Rational such as "if we do that we will have chaos and anarchy on our hands". "people can simply do what they want". "we have to have rules!".

Seems like a small point maybe, but I clearly see this debate we are having in this lane, and IMO, it is an important one to consider when you consider what the message of Aikido is pretty much about. That is nondualism or unification/reconciliation.

Okay, enough about that.

Philliip Wrote:

When was that book you mentioned published? If your right then why aren't guns or weapons, even mock ones allowed in the ring. Like I don't see them fighting against a pugle sticks in the ring.

Helio's book was published in the last 2 or 3 years.

Not going to answer the question concerning why weapons aren't allowed in the ring. Do you commonly practice with these things in your aikido dojo? what is the point of the question really?

I still am curious to what your answer to the question I keep asking you:

Do you consider me a budoka?

What do you consider the parameters or conditions or tenants that one must follow to be considered budoka?

Your failure to answer these questions and also to once again bring up emotionally charged statements comparing MMA to cockfights, is demonstrating, very clearly to me that you are less interesting in engaging in a philsophical debate and more interested on being argumentative and baiting me and other folks into a senseless, emotionally driven sidebar discussion around the actual issue.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Phillip Wrote: But a gay person is still a person, a human being. One that gets up, puts on his shoes just like you. He has feellings, eats, breathes, and sleeps just like a straight person. This may seem trivial, but this is my whole point. We are simply not learning the lessons of aikido if we form attachments and label things (dualism).

The thread starting question is dualism. Aikido was founded on dualism. I don't make the labels, I just observe them. I need to in not to go around confusing people and being confused in society. As for my example of homosexual and straight, gays labeled themselves that and defined themselves and their life styles, I didn't. I just observe that so I know how they want to be treated and defined, thus respected etc. It educates me.

The whole MMA challenge is dualism, MMA strongly functions in dualism and not zen, subjectivism etc.

more later....

Peter Chenier wrote: If may contribute... Aikido is a way. MMA is a sport... never confuse the two. You'll grow old and have a good life if you figure it out! ;0) A cryptic response? Not if you get it...I don't , but I'm starting too. Hint... if someone reeeeeaaaaly wants to harm you all the octagon training in the world will amount to squat. If you can come to terms with that reality your really on your way to becoming something other than for want of a better word a statistic. Respectfully Peter

I don't like octagons, they scew up my feng shui

Philip Burgess wrote: The thread starting question is dualism. Aikido was founded on dualism. I don't make the labels, I just observe them. I need to in not to go around confusing people and being confused in society. As for my example of homosexual and straight, gays labeled themselves that and defined themselves and their life styles, I didn't. I just observe that so I know how they want to be treated and defined, thus respected etc. It educates me. The whole MMA challenge is dualism, MMA strongly functions in dualism and not zen, subjectivism etc. more later....

Aikido recognizes dualism. It attempts to reconcile dualism. This is a little more precise than saying it was founded on dualism.

I am confused by your last sentence. You say MMA is dualism, and above you say aikido was founded on dualism.

I think a more precise statement may be "MMA guys are less concerned with the philsophical debate of dualism than maybe Aikido guys".

But, again, you don't answer my questions concerning the traits and tenants that you consider to be budo, which is what our whole debate started, so we are simply just chatting around the subject until you define it.

Philip Burgess wrote: more (trolling) later....

Whatever floats your boat, Buck.

Peter Chenier wrote: If may contribute... Aikido is a way. MMA is a sport... never confuse the two. You'll grow old and have a good life if you figure it out! ;0) A cryptic response? Not if you get it...I don't , but I'm starting too. Hint... if someone reeeeeaaaaly wants to harm you all the octagon training in the world will amount to squat. If you can come to terms with that reality your really on your way to becoming something other than for want of a better word a statistic. Respectfully Peter

I would suspect that Jigoro Kano, who probably is the reason Japanese martial arts even exist today, would disagree.

Alex Lawrence wrote: I don't like octagons, they scew up my feng shui

Thanks for the laugh!

Kevin, as much as I would like to slap this puck around with you, maybe a new thread should be started on our never ending story of how we see the world differently. To dualism or not to dualism that is the question.

Only if you answer my 2 questions.

The other day I overheard Baker Sensei answer a question from a new student. The student asked "How come you never see Aikido in the Ultimate Fighting Championships?"

Baker Sensei said: "It's because someone that truly understands Aikido would hit his opponent with a chair the second he stepped out of the cab! They tend to frown on that."

I understand what Baker Sensei is trying to say, I think.

But I also think that answer is not enough to actually be helpful to anyone trying to understand the assumptions, paradigms, and methodologies and endstates of martial training.

I'd say the vast majority of folks, myself included, had no real understanding of why we arts such as aikido. Heck to this day I still find myself wondering!

We come and do this stuff for some of the most irrational reasons, IMO, and stick around, I think, because deep down inside we are drawn to it because maybe for reasons we cannot explain...it just feels right.

So with respect to Baker Sensei, I don't know how you even begin to answer this question! But yes, that is definitely NOT a wrong answer, and one I have given as well, if nothing else to make the person THINK deeper about what things are and can be!

We study something that is based on very violent things, at the base we don't restrict ourselves to training methodology that we learn in the dojo...that is IF, the need to take action is warranted.

That said, the very nature of our philosophy and practice should provide us the ability to be much more skillful at finding ways around that action (hopefully).

Baker Sensei's answer should serve to remind us that we need to be careful about the paradiqms we establish based on daily training, habits, and methodology. They can cloud the real issues and cause dissonance problems in the heat of "battle".

Anyway, one thing I like about guys that have an affinity for the MMA paradigm is that they typically understand better than most why they are training what they are training. Endstates are clearer, and they are fully committed to getting there...physically at least.

However, it will be interesting to see as many hit physical peaks and start to age how they might deal with this once you start to come to the realization that you ain't the top dog, and you are going to die one day!

Good discussion.

Kevin,

I don't think it is a good idea to get too intellectually philosophical on this topic, because it isn't of that nature. What is being discussed doesn't need the heavy intellectual philosophical arguments discussed in ivory towers of what reality is and what isn't. Though I think you could do it. I am just not willing to stray in that direction on this topic in this thread. You brought in the inclusive and dualism ideas. I have no problems on how you see things. But, I just don't agree in this topic fits that, because of the first post starts off. Just look at the title of the thread. They we are presented with a hypothetical. We should be discussing the validity of that hypothetical.

As I said be before, since these threads are land mines, I would use a stun gun. We think of Aikido only within the time period of when it was created and back from there. This doesn't allow for new weaponry etc. like a stun gun with I feel fits within the design of Aikido because it is not lethal. If we train against and with weapons like knifes, staffs, guns and swords, why train to use a stun gun? Keep this in mind when your re-read Tony Wagstaffe's excellent post.

It is much more challenging to discuss that what I just said then go off on a tangent criticizing each other's personal views and philosophies.