Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > General

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-05-2007, 02:00 PM   #51
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Location: Stuttgart, Baden Wurttemberg
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
Germany
Offline
Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?

Oh BTW, when I was training this morning in passing the guard, I moved out and around trying to establish side control. My partner sat up on me and we went to our knees. I continued to move around to finish out the side control...and guess what happens, the best darn iriminage that you'd ever want to see! Flattened him back out, and THEN moved into side control, knee on stomach to standing

Principles, principles, and practical!
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2007, 02:09 PM   #52
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,996
United_States
Offline
Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
Oh BTW, when I was training this morning in passing the guard, I moved out and around trying to establish side control. My partner sat up on me and we went to our knees. I continued to move around to finish out the side control...and guess what happens, the best darn iriminage that you'd ever want to see! Flattened him back out, and THEN moved into side control, knee on stomach to standing

Principles, principles, and practical!
Okay, Kevin, that sounded cool. Except you'll have to break it down more for those of us not used to MMA/BJJ terms. Passing the guard? What kind of side control?

Thanks,
Mark
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2007, 02:57 PM   #53
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Location: Stuttgart, Baden Wurttemberg
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
Germany
Offline
Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?

You know I wish I had time to do some video to show some of the dynamics in BJJ and how they are similar in BJJ.

Just grabbed this video link to show the guard position. The one chosen was for no particular reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbbCLda-3sk

I thought about posting some examples from youtube on street fights that demonstrated the guard, but I think that many of these fights (most) are really obscene and inappropriate to post here on aikiweb.

anyway. I was referring to a side control position of not in the traditional BJJ sense, but simply on the side of the partner in which my hips were essentially prependicular as when we enter in tenkan prior to doing iriminage. Same principal. Typically when you pass the guard you end up in a side control position of some sort.

In my case, I got there on his side, he sat up, I brought my arm across, twist of hips and down he goes.

Hard to explain in words.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2007, 03:17 PM   #54
Mike Galante
Dojo: Aikido of North Jersey
Location: Suffern, NY
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 85
United_States
Offline
Cool Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?

Quote:
What is difficult for me and I think anyone in a violent encounter with someone trying to incapacitate or kill you is to concern yourself with the motivation behind what they want from you
Agreed, didn't mean to have that mindset. Just submit a scenario.

But, that is how I see it. Warfare aside. Why does this person want to harm you? If you can give him what he wants, then he will not want to do it. My experience, meager as it is, is that people are either jealous or some other frailty and that they want what you have in some primitive sense. If you give them what they want in the spiritual sense without belittling them, you will subdue their desire to fight. In other words, your spirit/soul is so strong as to effect a change in the other person.

In warfare, these poor bastards have been ordered to attack. So the personal aspect is missing. Spiritual bullet talk aside, how much
Aikido can you do when in a foxhole or a tank, etc.


Quote:
In many attacks, I think we don't concern ourselves much with the motivation or the reason for the attack. Giving the situation it may require that we use deadly force, or extreme violence rapidily in a point of mushin and NOT regard our opponent in that moment.
Agreed.

Quote:
I think this is very, very Key to why we study aikido and budo in general. This is why I am a HUGE proponent of studying this with soldiers. It develops you somewhat mentally and helps you integrate mind, body, and spirit so that we can take such actions with as little mental thought as possible, we do it with limited stimulus, and really do it based on instinct or our second mind.
Must be something for the soldier if he really doesn't believe in the reasons for a particular war. What an internal fight!

Quote:
Sometimes compassion happens after the fact. There are always at least two injured parties, the one that was killed and the one that did the killing.
Amen.

Quote:
That said, it is still important to always do "right action" and be as compassionate as possible. Not necessarily for your assailants healing and peace....but for your own. Again, PSTD.
Right on.
Well said.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2007, 07:21 PM   #55
Avery Jenkins
 
Avery Jenkins's Avatar
Dojo: Litchfield Hills Aikikai
Location: Litchfield, CT
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 139
Offline
Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?

OK, so everyone here is sick of hearing Kevin repeat CD, C, TD, S?

He's keeping good company. I happened to come across this today, in "Martial Arts: The Book of Family Traditions," by Yagyu Munenori (trans. Thomas Cleary). It pertains directly to the the first part, close distance:
-----------------
THE MOON IN THE WATER AND ITS REFLECTION

There is a certain distance between an opponent and yourself at which you will not get hit by the opponent's sword. Martial arts are applied from outside this space.

To get close to an opponent by striding into this space, or slipping into it, is called "the moon in the water," likened to the moon sending its reflection into a body of water.

One should engage an opponent only after having figured out the standpoint of "the moon in the water" before facing off.
-------------

Here's what I get out of it: The best damn swordfighter in history, outside of Musashi, is telling you that *before* closing distance is when you apply your martial arts skill, and successful entering can only be accomplished with an empty mind. In other words, principle, principle, principle.

Avery
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2007, 08:09 PM   #56
DonMagee
Location: Indiana
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,311
United_States
Offline
Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?

I still can't buy the whole sword fighting and fist fighting being similar thing though. There are a lot of very effective things you can do unarmed that you can't do with a sword, and vice versa. What he says makes sense when a single blow can kill. I don't buy that line either when it comes to unarmed conflict.

- Don
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" - Albert Einstein
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2007, 11:29 PM   #57
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Location: Stuttgart, Baden Wurttemberg
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
Germany
Offline
Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?

I understand where you are coming from Michele and will have to think about it today. I do think though that there are people that you cannot reach with your spirit to give them what they desire. Sometimes there are those I think that want something that we cannot give and even if we did they do not want it.

I will ponder this.

Don, I think much of this is a romantic and ideal notion. Certainly something worth striving for on a personal level. However, I like you don't think it is pragmatic to walk around using this as a modality for physical encounters.

We can go to the craps table with a clear mind, and our KI aligned, and attempt to will those little dice to come up with the correct number we want it to have and it will still come up wrong.

I do agree on the whole spiritual side of the house with MIchele and others on the whole elimination of duality, and the establishment of mushin etc., these are things that we must do if we are going to achieve true peace and harmony in the world.

I think though that in many cases these are macroscopic in nature and the karma and all that comes out of it is very, very complicated.

Again, on a macroscopic level, I don't think we should be so concerned with trying to influence things as much. In fact the very fact that we want to change someone, or influence them directly becomes a desire or an attachment, which once again forms that duality.

I think it is very, very complex and hard to define this. Both sides are right in a way.

Teddy Roosevelet, the original American Jiujitsuist comes to mind.

Walk softly and carry a big stick.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2007, 06:02 AM   #58
Joe Bowen
 
Joe Bowen's Avatar
Dojo: Yongsan Aikikai
Location: But now I'm in the UK
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 210
South Korea
Offline
Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
Clinch is simple a term to describe a serious of events that occur in fights...it is universal. We tend to associate this, as you state with MMA, but it is simply a term to describe a situation that occurs and not anyone technique.
Kevin, both you and Don are making "universal" statements with "non-universal" terms and ideas. You have locked yourselves into the semantics and vernacular of the "MMA" (for lack of a better term) and are trying to hoist it upon the rest of the world by telling us not to be locked into "traditional" definitions. This type of practice is quite arrogant.

Taking a word and modifying the definition to include things that are not normally associated with it to broaden its appeal, reduces the word itself to nothing. By your definition above, we start most aikido practices with a "clinch". Ryokatadori is a clinch, katatedori, is a clinch, ushiro ryotetori is a clinch, ushiro kubishime is a clinch. Also by the definition above, anytime we throw in aikido we are "clinching" so we can "takedown" and "submit". I could go on, but I hope you see the point. And, please don't say, "now your getting it", because the point is I'm rejecting it.

The terms clinch, takedown and submit do not apply universally to fights. And, from my own experience, in the 20 some odd fights I had when I was younger, these statements do not hold water. And changing the definitions of the terms to include hitting someone with a barstool as a "takedown", does nothing to persuade the argument.

We know that fights are unpredictable, we know that our training is not the only factor in the outcome of a fight. We also know that aikido in a real fight will probably not look like the aikido in the dojo, but we don't know that it will look like MMA. The point is that range of variables is too great to fit simply into any one formula.

Reexamine your own position, you enjoy MMA so when you hear fight, you automatically think, one on one, no weapons, almost anything is allowed...Ok, close distance, clinch, takedown, submit. This is quite natural for you, no argument there, but don't hoist it upon us all.

And Avery, Yagyu Munenori was talking about ma-ai, which is actually a concept you can universally apply to any fight.....

And, Don, this idea:

Quote:
Don Magee wrote:
There are three types of fights, one's you see coming and can avoid (and it is really obvious.), One's you start (again obvious), and ones you don't see coming..
As far as universally applicable statements about fights go, I find much more agreeable....

Thanks for the input, it is quite interesting, and Kevin, I found your story about the transition from a grappling guard into suwari waza iriminage quite enjoyable, if you can find a way to recreate it, I'm sure it would be an excellent addition to your own practice.....
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2007, 09:29 AM   #59
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Location: Stuttgart, Baden Wurttemberg
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
Germany
Offline
Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?

Joseph,

I understand a little what you are saying and can certainly see from you perspective why you would see this as some what arrogant.

Most certainly any time you try to generalize or reduce things to a common set of circumstances (reductionist theory), you are going to fall into a trap of this sort I suppose!

My intent was not to box aikido into BJJ terms, but to reduce fights down to a set of common stages that are typically experienced. It doesn't matter what art you study or what perceptions you have these things happen.

My language is english so I use english terms to describe concepts. If I were discussing aikido, I would use japanese terms because it conveys a concept within that paradigm that is universally accepted within that community of practice.

What other words should I use to describe these stages?

We could compare how the aikido vernacular fits into these concepts I suppose.

Closing the distance, the clinch, takedown, and submit are not techniques, they are concepts that define the basic stages of a fight. within each of those stages there is a transition that occurs that would incorporate any number of techniques and principles.

They are also some what linear. That is, we cannot do the other without completion of the previous transition. For example distance must be closed before I can do any of the other things. I must gain control of the fight (clinch phase), prior to doing a takedown, and/or submission.

For example; we can do irimi/tenkan, kotegaeshi, takedown, and immobilize.

The problem for me is this: if I speak in specific terms of aikido...we have certain perceptions and emotional energy built into what we should do every time, as aikido tends to speak in terms of specific techniques versus conceptual stages.

Joseph wrote:

Quote:
By your definition above, we start most aikido practices with a "clinch". Ryokatadori is a clinch, katatedori, is a clinch, ushiro ryotetori is a clinch, ushiro kubishime is a clinch. Also by the definition above, anytime we throw in aikido we are "clinching" so we can "takedown" and "submit". I could go on, but I hope you see the point. And, please don't say, "now your getting it", because the point is I'm rejecting it.
I reject this perception as well.

Irimi tenkan is how you close distance. In fact doesn't matter if you are MMA or aikido it is the one and only way to close distance, move on the 45 and redirect.

Kaitenage and all those other things you do once you are in range would be have elements of clinching since you are standing and attempting to gain center and control.

However, once you take balance and start to complete the technique with the "throw" then you are throwing.

and submission is just what it is....immobilization or submission.

You are correct, in aikido we speak of complete techniques that are all encompassing of these stages, whereas the CD, C, TD, S breaks things down further into stages. So it can be confusing and apples and oranges.

I think when you start dealing with full speed, non-compliant training it is important to break things down into these stages. Things happen too fast, and this methodology of thought allows us to address the critical events that happen in each of the stages.

I think of it simply as a different methodology to address sets of common events along a spectrum of fighting.

You bring up the point that Don and I are making assumptions about what a fight is and take a MMA paradigm. Not so.

I certainly understand weapons!

For example weapons would definitely impact how distance is closed. With a 50 Cal Barrett Rifle, I can close distance at 2000M! Knifes, sticks, and the like affect the fight as well.

If a big stick is involved distance could be closed, and someone hit in the head, fall down and the fight would end there! No need to continue on to the other phases right? Same with a knife right? Stab to the kidneys might change things to.

That said, does it not make sense to practice in all ranges of possible combat? Why would I stop at the best case scenario?

Not sure what your concept of MMA is....sounds like it is probably UFC fighting or BJJ. Certainly a part of it, but the MMA concept is not definable from any particular set of parameters.

For me MMA is Close Quarters Marksmanship, knifes, blunt objects, and empty hand and spans the range of combat. It might be different for someone else. It is also about breaking down your paradigms and constantly reassessing things...getting out of your comfort zone.

I don't care about what a fight looks like, what I do care about is that I have every advantage possible to come out of it on top if possible..so that is what I train to do.

Thanks for taking the time to contribute!
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2007, 01:50 PM   #60
Joe Bowen
 
Joe Bowen's Avatar
Dojo: Yongsan Aikikai
Location: But now I'm in the UK
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 210
South Korea
Offline
Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
My language is english so I use english terms to describe concepts. If I were discussing aikido, I would use japanese terms because it conveys a concept within that paradigm that is universally accepted within that community of practice.
Kevin, I'm not sure you getting the idea I'm trying to communicate. You're using the English language, yes, but you also using specific MMA/Grappling terms, and asking folks to suspend their normal definition of these terms and embrace your new definitions such that your idea gains a universal applicability.

Quote:
My intent was not to box aikido into BJJ terms, but to reduce fights down to a set of common stages that are typically experienced. It doesn't matter what art you study or what perceptions you have these things happen.
You aren't "boxing" aikido into BJJ terms, but you are "boxing" fights by using these typically MMA/Grappling terms and asserting the MMA/grappling "paradigm" as predominate.

If your truly talking about "concepts that define the basic stages of a fight" why are you using terms that specifically evoke the MMA/Grappling ideas and then asking the rest of us to apply them universally? Why not use more truly universal terms, like close distance (I really don't have a problem with the universal application of this term), control, unbalance and finish. Is that not what you are doing in the clinch-takedown-submit?

Quote:
within each of those stages there is a transition that occurs that would incorporate any number of techniques and principles....I think when you start dealing with full speed, non-compliant training it is important to break things down into these stages. Things happen too fast, and this methodology of thought allows us to address the critical events that happen in each of the stages....I think of it simply as a different methodology to address sets of common events along a spectrum of fighting.
I agree with you a 100% on this idea. Fights happen within a continuum of action, and it helps to break this continuum down into stages so we can analyze bits a pieces of the action in our training. And within your training paradigm, I'm quite sure the manner in which you have broken down the stages makes sense; however, you cannot present the terms you utilize within your training paradigm to break down the stages of a fight as universal. Because if you do you will find yourself within the linear paradox that you present below.

Quote:
They are also some what linear. That is, we cannot do the other without completion of the previous transition. For example distance must be closed before I can do any of the other things. I must gain control of the fight (clinch phase), prior to doing a takedown, and/or submission.
Here's a scenario where the linear clinch-takedown-submit stages fail to meet the burden of truth. A fights B, both have bats, A brains B with bat, B falls down unconscious, A walks away.
Now we can say A closed distance with B, he has to be close enough to hit him with the bat, no problem, but we can't say A clinched B with his bat, can we? Does that make sense? no. When B falls down after loosing his balance from the pain the the force of said bat, do we count that as a "takedown"? Has B been submitted as he lays on the floor? Ok, I'll give you that, but we went from Close to Submission without a clinch or takedown.
Quote:
You bring up the point that Don and I are making assumptions about what a fight is and take a MMA paradigm.
My point is that you're defining a fight within the MMA/Grappler paradigm, and asking for universal acceptance. Your not suspending your own preconceived definitions when choosing the terms, just modifying the definitions after the fact.

Weapons factor into a fight, anything from keys to machetes can be used as a weapon in a fight. I can go from close distance to fight over without a clinch or takedown; therefore the linear progression of the stages you describe do not apply. Now, go back and set parameters on the fight, and your stages apply.

I'm not saying your wrong, the stages you're describing apply but your terminology is not universal, nor can it be without accepting the specific paradigm.

Last edited by Joe Bowen : 01-06-2007 at 01:52 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2007, 03:01 PM   #61
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Location: Stuttgart, Baden Wurttemberg
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
Germany
Offline
Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?

Okay, I have no issue with close distance, control, unbalance and finish. I see your point. It conveys the same thing.

I see that much like aikido, the terms like clinch, takedown, submit do have certain concepts attached to them. I will use this from now on in a general setting. Thanks.

Also I did acknowledge that weapons and such influence that continum did I not? Your post seems to convey that I do not recognize that.

However, weapons still complete the continum. for example you still must close distance, gain control, unbalance and finish. Albeit, the unbalance thing might also be absorbed pretty quickly with the whole finish thing. Weapons certainly change the timing, distance, space, and responses along that process.

Thanks again!
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2007, 03:31 PM   #62
DonMagee
Location: Indiana
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,311
United_States
Offline
Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?

I find it much more involving if we argue the argument rather then the terms. I still don't see these as grappling, bjj, or MMA terms. A clinch to me is just a clinch, it is a point where people are in grabbing range and begin to do so. I can't think of a better term to describe that situation. It is not a control, because that assumes something, mainly that you have control. The thought you will have control is laughable at best. Once you are in the clinch, you must strive to gain or maintain control, then you can unbalance.

A takedown is just a takedown, it could be a throw, a trip, a punch, a mistake, a poorly placed chair, a bouncer. Very rarely is a takedown a throw outside of MMA, nobody wants to go to the ground, it just kinda happens. A submission is simply that, forcing another person to quit. A knockout is another alternative. You can do 4 things when you are on the ground and only 4 things.
1) get back up
2) submit the person
3) knock the person out
4) Kill the person

Nothing else is possible, you could immobilize the person, but if they do not submit, you still have to choose one of the other 3 choices.

Regardless, it does not matter what words you use. You could call them kick, punch, grap, throw, ground and pound. You could call them huey, lewy, dick, and jane. But they are valid stages that will happen. Will each stage happen every time? Obviously not. You can get knocked out before a clinch happens. You can trip and fall down, run away, thrown and back off without the submission, etc.

To say that I have preconceived definitions I'm changing to fit my situation is silly at best. I'm using the same definitions taught to me by my teachers which are exactly as I described them. A boxers clinch, a bjj clinch, a judo clinch is still a clinch. When I grab your wrists in aikido, we are clinching. Once one of us has control, a takedown, knockout, or break will happen depending on the desire of the person in control. If I am in control, it will probably be a takedown, hopefully with me still standing. If a MT boxer gets control, its going to be a knock out with knees.

Anyways, i'm straying again. My point was I am not seeing a counter argument to the fact that it would be smart to train for these ranges. Rather, I see an argument that we should use the words we are using. I submit we call them dick, jane, bob, and mindi. This way we are not submitting ourselves to anyones definitions.

- Don
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" - Albert Einstein
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2007, 12:19 PM   #63
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Location: Stuttgart, Baden Wurttemberg
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
Germany
Offline
Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?

Good point about the perspective on the Clinch Don. I thought control sounded good, but as you point out it conveys a state that would happen after the struggle that takes place during the clinch phase.

It is possible that you do not gain control and are taken to the ground, or that you separate and have to re-establish distance again...or run...or grab a now available weapon.

I also point out to my students that the clinch may not end when you do go to the ground. in positions like side control you are still really clinching, you are just on the ground.

Good point, the argument does seem to be centering around the terminology or phraseology.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2007, 03:06 PM   #64
Joe Bowen
 
Joe Bowen's Avatar
Dojo: Yongsan Aikikai
Location: But now I'm in the UK
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 210
South Korea
Offline
Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?

Don, the terms are the argument. You cannot phrase an argument without them, they are the bread and butter of the conversation. How you phrase your statements presuppose a one-on-one unarmed fight, and then you say these are all fights, so these "stages" are evident in all fights. I'm just saying that's incorrect. Take the below example:
Quote:
A takedown is just a takedown, it could be a throw, a trip, a punch, a mistake, a poorly placed chair, a bouncer. Very rarely is a takedown a throw outside of MMA, nobody wants to go to the ground, it just kinda happens. A submission is simply that, forcing another person to quit. A knockout is another alternative. You can do 4 things when you are on the ground and only 4 things.
1) get back up
2) submit the person
3) knock the person out
4) Kill the person
Nothing else is possible, you could immobilize the person, but if they do not submit, you still have to choose one of the other 3 choices.
The only 4 options you have suggested here, presuppose that there are only two combatants. If there is a third person then, you could get knocked off the person which would give you a number 5, unless you would count that as "getting back up" . So, something else is possible, unless we go back to the one-on-one scenario.
You're not going to find a counter argument to folks should train at various ranges. The thread from the start wasn't about that, it was about the vernacular that was applied universally to all fights, that inherently presuppose the fights are unarmed and one-on-one.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2007, 04:21 PM   #65
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Location: Stuttgart, Baden Wurttemberg
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
Germany
Offline
Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?

Hence why I have a huge banner in my training room that says this:

"The winner of the hand to hand battle is the guy whose buddy shows up with a gun first"

Granted, I am focusing on a particular set of situations dealing with soldiers in combat, but I think it is important to keep things in proper perspective.

Multiple opponents are a situational factor, and not a universal principal in all fights. A parameter.

Joe, I am not following your 5th option.

I believe you are mixing the stages with situational factors. How Don defines it, does not assume one opponent.

Don is limiting/isolating the parameters to the stages of a fight. In which I believe, he is correct.

1.You can get up,
2. make the person give up (immobilize/incapacitate/or they quit),
3. render them unconscious, or
4. kill them.

(I would put unconscious/kill into the same category technically as they are unconscious in both states, however I think it appropriate to separate them for ethical/escalation of force issues).

Situational factors would include weapons, objects, other people, clothing, light, weather, terrain...etc.

Once we have established and agreed upon the stages of a fight, then you can inject how each of the situational factors might play a role in the decisions you might make in each of those stages.

How I might react would depend which situational factors were present and that I knew about, or assumed might be present.

If I had two people I would react much differently than with one, however what I could do during those stages does not change.

I still must deal with each person as a separate entity and the same things apply to each of them. I might multitask at some points, however, the same stages/choices would apply to each of them.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2007, 10:54 AM   #66
Joe Bowen
 
Joe Bowen's Avatar
Dojo: Yongsan Aikikai
Location: But now I'm in the UK
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 210
South Korea
Offline
Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
Hence why I have a huge banner in my training room that says this: "The winner of the hand to hand battle is the guy whose buddy shows up with a gun first"
Great slogan, leave it up.
Quote:
Multiple opponents are a situational factor, and not a universal principal in all fights. A parameter.
I'm not claiming that multiple opponents are universal, but as we define our "universal principles" we must ensure we encompass all situations to be truly universal in application.

Quote:
I believe you are mixing the stages with situational factors. ...Situational factors would include weapons, objects, other people, clothing, light, weather, terrain...etc..... Once we have established and agreed upon the stages of a fight, then you can inject how each of the situational factors might play a role in the decisions you might make in each of those stages...
I think you're putting the cart before the horse. If you define the parameters of a situation, then you can readily identify stages that may or may not occur. For example, if we say "generally in most unarmed one-on-one fights 4 stages occur resulting in a clinch, takedown and submission", we might get more folks to agree, then if we said, "all fights have a clinch, takedown and submission stage". If we use the latter statement then we have to define these stages to include all of the situational exigencies to include things like a third party intervention.

I understand where you are coming from and within a context agree with what you say, but I just think you're trying to encompass too much within the stages you describe. However, while I'm sure you understand generally what I'm saying I'm not sure I'm convincing you to enough of an extent that it would be profitable for the thread to continue. Hopefully the next time I'm in Germany I'll be able to make it up your way, and we can get a work out in and then wax philosophic over a beer. Last word to you, if you care to take it....

joe
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2007, 11:57 AM   #67
DonMagee
Location: Indiana
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,311
United_States
Offline
Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?

Actually, I am still right, while 2 or more people are on the ground my 4 things are the only 4 things they can do. If another person is standing up and comes over and interjects himself into the conflict, it is not a ground fight. However, he can still only do a 1 of the 4 things. Get back up (or in this case disengage), knockout, sub, or kill. I fail to see how the new person could do anything else.

Lets use a scenario.

I get into a fight, I throw punches, and the guy clinches to avoid heavy blows to his skull. He pulls a small knife and while we fight over the knife we trip on a chair and fall to the ground.

At this point we just had a striking fight, where the distance was closed, a clinch happened, and a takedown occurred. The clinch was an escape due to strikes, the takedown was something neither of us wanted. Now, when we fell down the knife flew from his grasp and landed out of reach. I use my ground fighting to secure the mounted position.

I know have 4 choices.
1) submit my target
2) stand back up
3) knock out my target
4) kill him.

While i'm making up my mind my opponent has 2 choices.
1) attempt to reverse his situation
2) quit fighting.

If he reverses the situation, well then he has my 4 choices, I have his two choices.

To make this interesting, my friend see's what i'm doing and comes to stomp him. Same 4 choices. Now his two friends see what's happpening, and come to help him. one takes my friend out, and the other has 4 choices with me.
1) choose not to attack.
2) knock me out
3) submit me
4) kill me.

I still have my 4 choices
1) stand up
2) submit the guy i'm on
3) knock him out
4) kill him

I submit that standing back up and choosing to disengage or not to engage technically might not be the same thing, but in spirit they are. it doesn't' matter how many people, how many weapons, or how many anythings. You can choose to escape, kill, knockout, or submit. You may have other options before a fight happens, but once you are in a fight, these are your only options.

How do we make these options happen? By closing the distance. If needed clinch for a throw/takedown. Then if we end up on the ground, we submit our attacker with strikes/chokes/joint locks. Do we have to clinch/takedown/submit? No. But they are valid stages that happen, sometimes when we don't want them too.

But we still have not addressed what situations why you think that Kevin's stages of a fight are not universal. Your reasoning is they are not universal simply because MMA, judo and BJJ guys use these words?

Or is it deeper then that? If it's not aikido it's crap right?

What happens in a multiple person fight if not closing the distance, clinching, takedown, and a massive group beat down into submission/death? Multiple attackers really have no bearing on these terms because multiple attackers still have to close the distance, clinch, and takedown their target. Unless of course you are going to say these terms are not valid because aikido is ment to deal with a sword wielding attacker? That is usually the next argument. Well, that is why we train wrist grabs, because people did indeed clinch with sword wielding attackers. They grabbed them to prevent them from pulling their sword.

One last thing. Just because these area's are stages of a fight, does not mean you have to do them. it just means these are stages that happen in a fight. If I was fighting 4 guys. I would be trying to stop them from closing the distance and clinching, not clinching myself. Needless to say the clinch would play a major part of their strategy (unless they were wielding pipes or guns).

Last edited by DonMagee : 01-08-2007 at 12:00 PM.

- Don
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" - Albert Einstein
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2007, 01:31 PM   #68
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Location: Stuttgart, Baden Wurttemberg
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
Germany
Offline
Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?

Joseph wrote:

Quote:
I'm not claiming that multiple opponents are universal, but as we define our "universal principles" we must ensure we encompass all situations to be truly universal in application.
I think it to be the inverse of this actually. We universally define the stages of the fight, then we can apply the situational parameters as necessary.

Not to insult anyone, but I think we all pretty much recognize that we cannot account for every single parameter in a fight.

That is the problem I think with many RBSD type training. They typically will develop techniques for particular situations. Most of the guys that develop these types of systems have a very limited understanding of fights and believe that by codifying situations or what they consider to be the most probable that they are getting to the core of effectiveness. Also, by systemizing it, they can develop a course of study that is measurable and repeatable, hence marketable.

Makes sense to most of the general public where you can simply do step 1, 2, and 3 and master something that is definable and check that block!

So how do you train differently from this model? You isolate out as many of the situational parameters as you can until you get at the things that are most common to a fight. Then, you have a principle based system upon which you can develop a sound foundation of responses.

With a sound base, you can then expand outward and start incorporating the various situational parameters that you may encounter. The key, however is to develop this base.

Aikido recognizes this. So does BJJ, so does many MMAs.

There are only so many ways to fall, hit, kick, or grab. If we develop a sound base to deal with these things, then we can adapt and develop.

So, therefore, I believe that things like multiple opponents should NOT be considered when we define universal fight principles. They should only be considered as a situational parameter AFTER we consider the basics of how to appropriately respond to a single attacker in most common situations.

I don't believe this to be contrary to how I have been taught in my aikido dojo. It is the same methodology.

I admit, somewhere along the way, though, we get the idea (usually through randori I suppose) that this is what makes aikido somewhat special, the ability to deal with multiple opponents.

However, keep in mind we are NOT talking about aikido training, but fighting.

While certainly we must train for this awareness (multiple opponent and all other situational parameters) .....

UNTIL, we can learn to appropriately deal with a single opponent (uke), then we cannot deal with multiple opponents or weapons.

We should not confuse proper and effective training, with one of the greatest fears we might have, which is proficiently dealing with more than one opponent and/or weapons.

Kinda reminds me of the old saying...."how to you eat a whole elephant?" one piece at a time!

Regardless of what we think, we must deal with each opponent separately and distinctly. We may multitask. For example, we may irimi/tenkan behind one guy closing the distance...then take his center, then close distance with the next one, kick him, then go back to the first one and render him unconscious, then turn and clinch with the second one, and complete the fight.

If you video taped the fight and then had special equipment, and could isolate each opponent...you can imagine and see that you are completing each of the stages of the fight with each individual person.

Therefore, if we correctly train against one oppponent...that is, learning to deal with them in a controlled, non-compliant way, and once we can proficiently do this...we can then move on to including a second one, and then a third in theory.

Therefore, I submit, that IF you train with a sound base that focuses on the universal principles of a fight, that gives you a flexible skill set, that you can adapt. You do not need to specifically account for all the parameters such as multiple persons, knives, guns, sticks to develop this base. In fact it will slow your development as you will become too narrow focused on particular parameters.

That is not to say that you should not train these things at all....you should...simply that it is not imperitive to train these things to develop your core skills. I think 80% of your time should be spent on the basics, and 20% on the other.

Remember, we are talking NOT about Aikido, but fighting and developing effective fighting skills.

More to follow, I will break it up in a separate post for readibility.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2007, 01:44 PM   #69
DonMagee
Location: Indiana
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,311
United_States
Offline
Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?

Every now and then my bjj club will put one guy in the middle and have us walk in a circle around him, the instructor will tap a few people without the guy in the middle knowing which ones. Anytime before they get around the circle they can attack the guy in the middle. Usually with slaps, throws, grappling, etc.

It's a good eye opener for anyone who thinks bjj owns all other martial arts. The guys who survive the longest are the ones who keep moving, and keep their opponents off balance. Just like in aikido. Eventually though, the numbers grow, and you get overwhelmed :-)

The funniest thing I ever seen though was a blue belt submitting two white belts at the same time with this situation. He got one in a reverse triangle, and used him to shield himself from the other who got tripped up and submitted (I don't remember exactly how).

- Don
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" - Albert Einstein
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2007, 01:57 PM   #70
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Location: Stuttgart, Baden Wurttemberg
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
Germany
Offline
Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?

Joseph wrote:

Quote:
I understand where you are coming from and within a context agree with what you say, but I just think you're trying to encompass too much within the stages you describe. However, while I'm sure you understand generally what I'm saying I'm not sure I'm convincing you to enough of an extent that it would be profitable for the thread to continue. Hopefully the next time I'm in Germany I'll be able to make it up your way, and we can get a work out in and then wax philosophic over a beer. Last word to you, if you care to take it
I think I do understand. I also think that the differences behind what we might be saying are probably minor. It is difficult at best to conceptual and "DO" training over the internet. It has however served to have what I consider to be a very good discussion over this topic. You have challenged me to think hard about things and have to explain things, which is a true learning experience for me.

I agree, we are probably getting circular in our discussion at this point, but I think lots of good stuff has come out of it. Thanks!

I try not to be a last word kinda guy as that is not what is important. It would love to get together if possible and talk over a beer, because in the end, that is what is most important on the common path that we are on! Cheers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2007, 02:10 PM   #71
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Aikido of Northern Virginia
Location: Stuttgart, Baden Wurttemberg
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
Germany
Offline
Re: So What Is a Fight Anyway?

Mike Gallante wrote:

Quote:
In warfare, these poor bastards have been ordered to attack. So the personal aspect is missing. Spiritual bullet talk aside, how much
Aikido can you do when in a foxhole or a tank, etc.
I know this is a few days ago, but I was reading it just now and had a comment....

This is the huge misconception we face today concerning warfare. David Grossman addresses it pretty well in his book "On Killing"

Tanks and foxholes and long distance weapons have a way of reducing our enemy to mere targets or objectives. It is difficult to kill someone that you develop compassion or have developed a relationship with.

Killing though still affects us in a very personal way though.

Today the military is facing a different problem than we did in the cold war. We must win the hearts and minds and confidence of those we have conquered.

The fight begins way before the bullet leave the barrel and ends a long time after it has struck it's target.

It is a limited view to simply view the small parameters of the guy in the tank or foxhole that pulls the trigger. There is a certain amount of karma that follows that bullet, and that soldier must directly or indirectly deal with that after the fact.

This is why we have PSTD, and why wars last long after the battles are done and the last offensive campaign has been completed.

Lots of need and room for the lessons of aikido.
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

Aikido DVDs and Video Downloads - by George Ledyard Sensei & other great teachers from AikidoDVDS.Com



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Cheating" to survive a real fight drDalek General 57 01-09-2007 02:19 PM
Brawling with a friend Luc X Saroufim General 227 07-17-2006 07:33 PM
Techniques for breaking up a fight. Fred26 Techniques 8 01-22-2005 09:35 AM
Fight, run? Some Abstract Musings DaveO General 5 07-19-2002 04:53 PM
the whole competition thing Nick General 26 02-05-2001 07:01 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:13 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2014 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate