This aint UFC!

My son and I were playing aikido at my dojo the other day. Because he is a big young man I really enjoy practicing technique that he is fully resisting. Well, things got a little rough and he decided to go "UFC" on me. He only forgot one thing; the UFC has rules, aikido doesn't. I felt him going for a choke hold of some type, so I reached out and let him know that his groin was in a very vulnerable position. He quickly released me. I did take a moment after this and explain that aikido is budo. It aint UFC. As I see it, aikido doesn't have rules, it has principles, which may be employed in an infinite variety of ways. Principles are of a higher order than rules are. Rules are put in place and governed by humans whereas the principles of aikido are governed by universal laws. If I can attune myself to those laws, my aikido will be better. Not because I am higher ranked, tougher, or more gifted, but because I have succsesfully aligned myself with universal principles of a higher order. That being said, reading this article also reminded me that aikdio doesn't have the corner on the universal principles market.

Damn straight - thank you for not perpetuating the myth that choke holds work in reality...

Chris Birke wrote: Damn straight - thank you for not perpetuating the myth that choke holds work in reality...

I don't know about that as I have never been put in one "in reality."

Are you saying the universal principles of higher order Aikido only apply in non reality?! I don't understand your example then.

Chris Birke wrote: Are you saying the universal principles of higher order Aikido only apply in non reality?! I don't understand your example then.

I'm not sure my "example" had anything to do with universal principles other than reminding me of them.

Yeah, but I think it means "it's not the UFC" because rules prevent universal principles from applying there, right?

I don't think in a real fight there is a rule where it says do not hit the groin, either universal or as a principle.
I see in Aikido the use of temporary pain to gain control of the opponent as the "universal" rule. Creating a injury or killing is against Aikido purposes, but using temporary pain, wherever inflicet doesn't metter, it is the purpose of Aikido.

Chris Birke wrote: Yeah, but I think it means "it's not the UFC" because rules prevent universal principles from applying there, right?

some of them.

Gianluigi Pizzuto wrote: I don't think in a real fight there is a rule where it says do not hit the groin, either universal or as a principle. I see in Aikido the use of temporary pain to gain control of the opponent as the "universal" rule. Creating a injury or killing is against Aikido purposes, but using temporary pain, wherever inflicet doesn't metter, it is the purpose of Aikido.

I think that injuring or killing in order to save my own or another innocent persons life would be in line with aikido purposes.

sounds like it was a pretty poor choke to me...

In the "real world," either side could have drawn a firearm and shot the other repeatedly until he was dead. Either side could have drawn a knife and stabbed the other repeatedly until he was lying there dying in a pool of blood. Are we really still arguing over what works in the "real world," a world that at least in my experience, is dominated by weapons?

In the "real world," either side can gouge eyes, grab someone by the balls, smash the edge of his hand into the others throat (repeating as necessary), bite, try to tear his opponent's ears off, smash him in the head with a chunk of rock or piece of brick, pick up a 2x4 and beat the other to death with it, etc.. In ANY MA, there are rules. If people aren't getting carted off to the morgue after each training session, you are training with rules.

All martial arts have something to offer in the way of self defense: improved balance, agility, faster reflexes, explosiveness, the ability to concentrate (so your mind doesn't float), improved fitness, and maybe a bit of toughening up, but in my opinion, none are really fully up to the task of dealing with the "real world."

Real self-defense is about awareness, avoidance, and escape. Attack the eyes, throat, whatever and get away as quickly as possible. That is what real self-defense is about. Survival. It may not be "macho" but it will keep you alive in the "real world" which is dominated by weapons. (Of course, military and police have different functions and responsibilities.) James.

Ahh the whole street vs sport debate. I love the idea's on both sides. I'd suggest training him to perform a proper choke or train with properly trained sport fighters, that way you can experience the other side of the debate.

I train for the the fight. People attempt to attack my eyes, ears, fingers, pressure points, and boys all the time. When performed properly they are no more at risk then your street training.

Ricky Wood wrote: My son and I were playing aikido at my dojo the other day. Because he is a big young man I really enjoy practicing technique that he is fully resisting. Well, things got a little rough and he decided to go "UFC" on me. He only forgot one thing; the UFC has rules, aikido doesn't. I felt him going for a choke hold of some type, so I reached out and let him know that his groin was in a very vulnerable position. He quickly released me. I did take a moment after this and explain that aikido is budo. It aint UFC. As I see it, aikido doesn't have rules, it has principles, which may be employed in an infinite variety of ways. Principles are of a higher order than rules are. Rules are put in place and governed by humans whereas the principles of aikido are governed by universal laws. If I can attune myself to those laws, my aikido will be better. Not because I am higher ranked, tougher, or more gifted, but because I have succsesfully aligned myself with universal principles of a higher order. That being said, reading this article also reminded me that aikdio doesn't have the corner on the universal principles market.

There seems to be a bit of a category error here - UFC is (in a broad sense) a training method not a martial art. It has rules rather than principles, but so do all training exercises in aikido - even if in the case of most aikido exercises they're unwritten and self-enforced. But if you want to use MMA competition for testing and developing your understanding and application of universal principles then you can. This is kind of how I understand shiai, although in my case the result of the testing tends to be 'some way to go yet'...

As an aside, the one rule in (most) MMA competition that really seems to lose a lot of reality is the 'no strikes to the back of the head or neck.' Obviously I can see why the rule's there, but to my very limited understanding of groundfighting, it seems to mean that if someone is kneeling over you and hitting you in the face, you can get yourself comparatively safe by rolling over and presenting them with the back of your head. Which seems like a dangerous habit to develop.

edit: that last bit is looking for someone to explain why I'm wrong or why it isn't that important, btw, not just as a criticism.

Just one tiny thing to think about:
Had he played by similar rules to yours, he could have killed you by crashing your throat rather then slowly choking you in a way that gives you time to respond.

You were not better then him, you just changed the rules mid-game (he may have changed them first, but it does not really matter).

I would also note that a choke is at leas as dangerous as grabbing the balls. It is bad Aikido to let someone choke you, you should have avoided before hand.

And most M.A. utilize almost the exact same principles. I have only seen very little BJJ, yet I saw a BJJ lesson about standup in S.D. purview, but I must point it seemed almost exactly like Aikido, same ideas, same general concepts.

I do not believe in better or worse Martial ARTS, I do believe in better or Worse Martial ARTISTS.

Amir

Actually, rolling over in a MMA match and exposing your back is usually a very bad idea. For one, as shown in the last UFC, rolling over and laying flat is not defending yourself, and will cause you to quickly loose the match, and two, you can be back mounted, beaten, and choked from the back with much less chance of defense then from the front.

David Sim wrote: As an aside, the one rule in (most) MMA competition that really seems to lose a lot of reality is the 'no strikes to the back of the head or neck.' Obviously I can see why the rule's there, but to my very limited understanding of groundfighting, it seems to mean that if someone is kneeling over you and hitting you in the face, you can get yourself comparatively safe by rolling over and presenting them with the back of your head. Which seems like a dangerous habit to develop. edit: that last bit is looking for someone to explain why I'm wrong or why it isn't that important, btw, not just as a criticism.

If you do that - they will choke you.

Amir

Don Magee wrote: Ahh the whole street vs sport debate. I love the idea's on both sides. I'd suggest training him to perform a proper choke or train with properly trained sport fighters, that way you can experience the other side of the debate. I train for the the fight. People attempt to attack my eyes, ears, fingers, pressure points, and boys all the time. When performed properly they are no more at risk then your street training.

No debate from me Don. I do not recommend training in aikido for sport fighting purposes just as I do not recommend iaido for those purposes. You like what you like and I like what I like. However, let us not also fool ourselves into believing that a "proper" choke cannot be countered in some way. Again though, I will stress; I make no claims as to the "street" effectiveness of my aikido. As Americans we should know that the "street" is full of much weaponry where our hand-to-hand skills are no match. What is very helpful is the mindset that comes from practicing aikido.
Perhaps a little of my background will help you understand my perspective. I learned aikido from Iwao Yamaguchi sensei of Okinawa Aikikai. Okinawa is a VERY safe place to live. The training was very intense, however the "street" effectiveness of the art was not emphasized. That is still my way of thinking.

Yes a proper choke can be countered, with a proper choke defense. Clutching for a handful of testicle is not going to save you when a guy knows what he is doing. Its just going to make sure he kills you after you are unconscious.

If people aren't getting carted off to the morgue after each training session, you are training with rules.

Thehehe...

Amir Krause wrote: Just one tiny thing to think about: Had he played by similar rules to yours, he could have killed you by crashing your throat rather then slowly choking you in a way that gives you time to respond.

I agree Amir. And that's not a "tiny thing."

Amir Krause wrote: You were not better then him, you just changed the rules mid-game (he may have changed them first, but it does not really matter).

Good point. And no it doesn't matter.

Amir Krause wrote: I would also note that a choke is at leas as dangerous as grabbing the balls. It is bad Aikido to let someone choke you, you should have avoided before hand.

In agree with that as well. If you read my original statement I said "I felt him going for a choke hold." I countered before he completed it is all. But does it really matter? Not to me. The incident, for some odd reason, caused me to think about principles and rules, and their differences. Perhaps I should not have titled the thread what I did. I do like to rib the MMAers a bit though. This is an aikido after all.

Amir Krause wrote: I do not believe in better or worse Martial ARTS, I do believe in better or Worse Martial ARTISTS.

That is most wise.

Don Magee wrote: Yes a proper choke can be countered, with a proper choke defense. Clutching for a handful of testicle is not going to save you when a guy knows what he is doing. Its just going to make sure he kills you after you are unconscious.

Yeah, if someone who knows how to choke: takes my back, gets their hooks in, and sinks the choke in tight I have a good defense: tapout.

Ricky:

If you're really concerned about chokes, why not go to a BJJ/MMA gym and give it a try? They'll even let you try the nuts grabbing thing as long as you tell them first. You might learn something, they might learn something. Win/win.

Keith Lee wrote: Ricky: If you're really concerned about chokes, why not go to a BJJ/MMA gym and give it a try? They'll even let you try the nuts grabbing thing as long as you tell them first. You might learn something, they might learn something. Win/win.

If I was "really concerned" about chokes I would do just as you suggest. I am not. I did drop by a gym in town and wasn't impressed, but I think that is more due to the artist than the art, as Amir says. We don't often grapple as a part of aikido training. My aikido is very basic and I am quite busy improving my basics. The "choke" experience somehow reminded me of the principles rule thing that many seem to not have read.

I actually had the opposite experience last saturday. I was in aikido class and it was small, just 4 of us (two students and the instructor). Two of us have been training judo together, so the instructor was having us demonstrate some judo and show how we could blend aikido into it (which was interesting). After playing for a while, we got on the subject of armbar escapes. Our instructor was talking about attacking the feet to stop the armbar (after it was set). He was relating a story about how he foot locked a guy he knew when he went for an armbar. He wanted to test and see how to recreate the escape. I offered up my foot. I placed the instructor in an armbar from the mount. I did not finish the armbar I just layed there and kept proper technique (controling the head with my knee, control the body with my other leg, elbow locked up tight, thumb under control). After a few seconds of being unable to attack my foot he asked me if I was going to attempt to finish the armbar. I complied and he tapped within a second. Another student who had studied pressure points wanted to test his idea on escaping. We had similar results.

I could relate that this means bjj is greater then aikido, but that would be false. The real truth is that I used good proper technique and thus the attempts to stop the technique at that point (arm already outstretched) was futile. Had they attempted to stop the attack before the armbar, or at the point of attack, they may of faired better. The truth is that on a person not properly trained, I'm fairly sure the annoying pain would of stopped the attempt. But what untrained person would try an armbar from the mount?

I guess that's my point, the rules protect the athlete, but in a one on one unarmed conflict, I'd pick a properly trained MMA guy over most other martial artists, rules or no.

Just a thought,
ANY technique in ANY martial art can be counter while IN THE PROCESS of being applied.
ANY technique in ANY martial art cannot be counter when it's ALREADY PROPERLY applied.
doesn't matter if its a choke, a lock, a throw, or whatever, while the technique is developing it can be counter if the defender has the necessary ability, training, awareness, etc. BUT, once the choke, lock, throw, or whatever is properly achieved, can't be counter.
Applying a technique properly is not only a matter of strength or speed, it's also important to use proper mechanics.

Don Magee wrote: I actually had the opposite experience last saturday. I was in aikido class and it was small, just 4 of us (two students and the instructor). Two of us have been training judo together, so the instructor was having us demonstrate some judo and show how we could blend aikido into it (which was interesting). After playing for a while, we got on the subject of armbar escapes. Our instructor was talking about attacking the feet to stop the armbar (after it was set). He was relating a story about how he foot locked a guy he knew when he went for an armbar. He wanted to test and see how to recreate the escape. I offered up my foot. I placed the instructor in an armbar from the mount. I did not finish the armbar I just layed there and kept proper technique (controling the head with my knee, control the body with my other leg, elbow locked up tight, thumb under control). After a few seconds of being unable to attack my foot he asked me if I was going to attempt to finish the armbar. I complied and he tapped within a second. Another student who had studied pressure points wanted to test his idea on escaping. We had similar results. I could relate that this means bjj is greater then aikido, but that would be false. The real truth is that I used good proper technique and thus the attempts to stop the technique at that point (arm already outstretched) was futile. Had they attempted to stop the attack before the armbar, or at the point of attack, they may of faired better. The truth is that on a person not properly trained, I'm fairly sure the annoying pain would of stopped the attempt. But what untrained person would try an armbar from the mount? I guess that's my point, the rules protect the athlete, but in a one on one unarmed conflict, I'd pick a properly trained MMA guy over most other martial artists, rules or no.

That was an "opposite" experience?
Sorry, we are on totally different wavelengths. My experience was more related to the differences in principles and rules. Then again, maybe yours is opposite of mine.