My Experiences in Cross Training MMA with Aikido

Chris Hein wrote: You should try sparring with some wooden knives, or padded clubs, and see what turns up for you. It changed my whole practice, for the better! Good luck!

Indeed, I intend to get some foam knives. It would be fun and safe! I remember doing this in one of the Yoshinkan dojos I trained at and it really made you respect knives.

No matter how good my techniques against tanto-dori is, I'm not going to risk it and people should not build a false sense of security from practicing weapon taking techniques. RUN RUN RUN being the most important thing.

That being said, I was once had a robber point a knife towards my chest and I had did some sort of koto gaeshi on him before I could quite think and ended up in some sort of yonkyo lock where he was screaming and I was screaming like a little girl as I realized I didn't know what to do after I locked him. I went fully with the yonkyo, probably dislocated something as I heard something pop and a huge scream from the robber. And then kicked him in the ribs a few times before running back home like a girl. Lol hey not beautiful but it works :P

Though of course in general, if the knife guy knows what he's doing, he's in most cases going to slice u

Jun Akiyama wrote: Salim, please understand that not everyone shares your thoughts regarding what constitutes an interesting discussion here on AikiWeb. These discussions that you may believe to be "fluff" belong and and are just as welcome here on AikiWeb as much the threads that you yourself may be interested in. Let's now steer the discussion back to the topic at-hand rather than to its meta-discussion... -- Jun

Jun,

I agree with Reuben Yap. That's IT.

Salim Shaw wrote: I agree with Reuben Yap. That's IT.

Then, next time, please state such agreements without disparaging the discussions of others like you did above.

-- Jun

Jun Akiyama wrote: Then, next time, please state such agreements without disparaging the discussions of others like you did above. -- Jun

WHAT!

Perception of an Attack In Aikido, most students aren't really good attackers. In fact, I think in most Aikido schools, we're trained to be sloppy to let the other person learn the technique. Unfortunately even at the dan levels, due to repeated 'training' of sloppy attacks, we never quite learnt how to do a proper attack, getting further away from practicality.

Yep, Aikido attacks, executed properly, IME end sparring matches (not had cause to try them out for real) pretty much instantly.
The problem is that Aikidoka see the kata ("techniques") as being Aikido but don't see the attacks as also being Aikido, even if we commonly use them in kata. For instance in shomen uchi kaiten the defence against shomen uchi is morote dori. Ushiro ryote katadori is near as damn it irmi nage ura. Very rarely though do we attack with the same intensity that we defend.

You can't expect to apply Aikido to every attack When I swapped these sloppy attacks with more realistic quick punches, you realized that there are punches that you can't do a technique on (for example a crisp jab), while others which give u a window of opportunity to do something (for example hooks and crosses). When practicing with my students who had little training of any sorts of punches, even when they were trying to punch quick and jab, I managed to complete techniques against these. For crisp jabs, it was basically learning to keep a distance and circle (much like CMD) while deflecting them with non committal slaps. CMD talks about occupying the space with jabs, while Aikido has it all out there ALREADY occupying this space putting you in an ideal position to redirect non committal attacks without sacrificing defense. Perhaps this is a manifestation of ma-ai.

You can't expect to apply Aikido kata to every attack. People like to say "Aikido techniques don't work" forgetting, or just being plain ignorant of the fact, that there are no techniques because the kata were never intended to function as techniques.
People also forget that the attacks are also kata and that tsuki is not a punch it is tsuki, a thurst. IME the best way for training against jabs in Aikido is learning from fore foot irimi shomen because in all important respects it's identical to a jab.

Realistic Sparring changes your Mindset- you can't always be passive CMD also introduced me to realistic sparring where you don't really know how the other guy is going to attack. Aikido randoori or jiyuwaza isn't really 'free' in that there are still predetermined attacks and...holds.... It's one mindset doing jiyuwaza and another where there is a real danger of being punched and where it's accepted to get punched as part of the learning process. In an Aikido dojo, if you don't 'pull your punches' and actually connect with someone, you're labelled as a violent person which leads to overcompensation with fake, unrealistic attacks. When approaching jiyuwaza with this mindset, you actually develop a more pro-active style, moving in before the person has fully gotten up and pre-emptively striking right before he strikes if his posture is weak. It no longer is an elaborate dance but resembles a realistic scenario where you're really thinking about how to protect yourself. I think this is what many higher dan Aikido masters have found when they mentioned that in a real life situation you need to take a lot more initiative rather than waiting for an attack to come to you. In fact you unlock true 'jiyu' where you remove the rules of what's acceptable dojo sparring and are free to innovate.

Yep, I learned that you have to obey the principles taught in the kata and get in ASAP. Being a good uke is actually more practical than being a good tori I've found. If you can attack really well, if you can make morote dori and ushiro ryote katadori and all the other attacks in such a way that you immobilise and off balance your opponent technique becomes a doddle if you even need something complicated enough to be called a technique.

I wouldn't say that pulling punches is universal in all Aikido dojo, in ours if you pull a punch you get told off. We have yuyo as a safety feature not punch pulling.

Atemi is super important Atemi is the act of striking your opponent. Now are often told that atemi is a distracting move and there are even some Senseis who see atemi as sort of a cheating move. I don't see it that way but as a necessary extension of what Aikido is. In fact, I believe O-Sensei advocated the importance of this. In real life, your opponent is not going to be compliant or stationary and you need a surprise jolt to buy yourself enough time to get into position for a technique. Training counter-punching in CMD is VERY relevant to the proper application of atemi. The timing and applying the necessary force to disorient your uke is an aspect not trained. Too often in regular Aikido training, atemi is an afterthought, done poorly and more of just a movement that in the heat of a real fight, it's often forgotten or done ineffectively. A proper atemi hurts. Imagine getting your face smacked by a fist or being punched below the ribs, and most people will be to disoriented to resist your technique.

Again, it depends where you train.

Some techniques remain a mystery to me Still some Aikido techniques continue to be a mystery to me and seem only applicable against a crazy guy charging at you giving you full committal. For example, certain versions of kokyu-ho seem incredibly unrealistic unless the guy continued to hold your hand throughout the movement. This is obviously ridiculous in a real life situation. However I do see a point in learning these techniques as it does teach you the proper flow and extension needed to execute throws but this should be made clear from the beginning rather than passed off as a 'technique'. A technique that can only be applied on a compliant uke, is not a real technique to me. It's a practice drill.

Kokyu-ho means "Breath power exercise." A lot of what goes on in an Aikido dojo is a total mystery to most Aikidoka. Excersises for kata are taught as kata, kata are regarded as technique, weapons work is thought of as being seperate and different from body art.
Aikido is in a mess.

Aikido against a trained fighter Now I have to admit, Aikido against a trained fighter will probably have very limited usage. An experienced fighter who just does a little research on Aikido can easily see what an Aikidoka is trying to do and easily prevent it. Aikido does rely heavily on the element of surprise. In fact I'll be quite confident if I had to spar with someone who only knew Aikido. Aikido has no place in the octagon/professional fighting as much as BJJ has no place outside 1 on 1 fighting. However, the majority of the guys you are going to face are untrained fighters or people who aren't actually expecting you to resist in such a manner. This is really in most cases a true self defense scenario where you're going to be caught by surprise and the attacker isn't expecting you to fight back. Just imagine getting yourself into a boxing stance when faced with attackers, it immediately puts them on notice that you know how to fight and they react accordingly. The great thing about Aikido is that you can still assume a non threatening stance and yet be ready to explode into action. It builds muscle reflexes where if someone grabs me, I immediately instinctively move into a throw (yes I once threw my ex-gf and almost threw my Japanese tour operator). It is also very final and yet non lethal. Sure a punch in CMD should end most fights but a proper pin or throw has a certain finality to it perhaps only less as compared to a BJJ choke.

The great thing about Aikido is it's explosiveness. We can just charge people down. I think of it like this: BJJ shoots for the waist and below, Aikido shoots for the waist and above.
I use the power of the charge to pin my opponents arms into their body and force them back or I charge in and open up their guard and go for sumi otoshi or uchi kaiten. It's over in three seconds flat.
You're a striker? Great, I weigh 13 stone, I'm charging in and though you with my guard protecting my centerline and reaching for you and making atemi, good luck stopping me with one punch, if you even clock on to what's going on in time.

The trouble with Aikidoka is that we fight like westerners on the whole. We want to stay mid-range and grind our opponent down. We don't like the idea of ikken hisatsu, of risking everying on one decisive attack japanese stylee and so we get chewed up by those using arts that are suited for mid-range fighting forgetting that those arts get chewed up by close range fighters, like Aikidoka.

We have a defencive attitude and an art that sucks defencively.

Aikido is still relevant So in my opinion, Aikido is still very relevant. Sure it may not be as mano to mano effective as MMA, but its applications in a self defense situation are still very real as long as a more realistic emphasis is placed on training. We often forget that legends such as O-Sensei and Gozo Shioda perfected their art through realistic matches/fights gaining the necessary instincts to be able to pull off Aikido. In a way, realistic sparring may be that missing element to complete Aikido. Slow and unrealistic attacks do have a role in learning Aikido. It's just that we must learn that once we have reached a certain level of Aikido, it's time to move away from the rules that were created to protect us but at the same time restrain us from the true application of Aikido.

Aikido is a rough diamond at the moment. Many instructors don't understand the different parts of the art or how they fit together.
They also don't understand the cultural back ground that Aikido comes from i.e. ikken hisatsu, one strike decides all. Or maybe they just don't like it because it doesn't fit in with the whole pacifism thing people equate Aikido to.
There also needs to be an acknowledgement that the attacking side of the art is as important, if not more important than the defencive part and not just something we do so that we can practice technique.

I'm going to put something out here that is really a curiosity to me, and maybe I'll get an answer.

So whenever I talk about weapon stuff and Aikido, people are quick to tell me that you should always run when facing a weapon.

Why is that?

Not that I fault the logic, but what they really seem to be saying to me is: well if you're both unarmed then you should kick the snot out of them.

If you find yourself in ANY kind of fight, you should avoid it. I understand that a weapon fight might cost you your life, and that is why people are quick to say you should run. But it should go without saying, in my opinion, that you should avoid all fights, whether your life depends on it or not.

Training and fighting are two very different animals. Because you train in archery doesn't mean you want to shoot people with arrows. I know lots of people have this super fantasy that one day some punk will cross their path and they will defeat him with their martial skills. This fantasy is no less ugly then getting stabbed, or having to stab someone.

Hurting people, and being hurt is never cool. So when people respond with: "you should run", it seems a little redundant to me. We are all talking about training, not fighting. If you feel the need to respond with "you should run" then every thread you post in should be prefaced with "you should run", because you should always run, unless you can't.

Mr. Yap, I'm not picking on you here, I hear the "you should run" statement a lot. It always makes me wonder why people are stating that now, when they don't state it every time we talk about martial arts.

Reuben Yap wrote: However even in the learning stages, it is important to imprint on the students of the nature of a real attack and how in real life things aren't going to be so preplanned and choreographed. Have a few exercises that even mix it up a LITTLE bit to get them aware of this. We need to have Aikido students acclimated to the physiological and psychological responses to stress. It's easy to think 'keep calm' but without proper practice and conditioning, I doubt this will be achieved especially when encountered with a situation he was never prepared for. Even if it's a little stress (and this may be a good thing actually especially in a safe environment), the student gets used to the feeling.

Great points. Our dojo does try to incorporate this type of thinking into beginners classes. There are several different ways we do this. We have worked on some exercises to get us moving "off the line" and out of the way of an attack, we have had classes focused on a comitted attack that strikes true. We do some exercises where we can choose one of several variations of a technique we are doing (changing entrance, etc). Also try to stress in ukemi that it's not about giving up, it's about having the best tactical advantage you can when being in a tactically bad position (safety and responsiveness).

Especially in our weapons classes, we stress that, even though it's wooden, it's still a deadly weapon, which helps to give a sense of realism that a strike doesn't always have.

Chris Hein wrote: If you find yourself in ANY kind of fight, you should avoid it.

If you find yourself in ANY kind of fight, it's too late to avoid it...don't you think?

Chris agree. Mary agree. The failure of most folks in a fight is to first realize that they are indeed in a fight. Either you are or you are not. "Should run" means that you have the option to run. In a civilian setting, this means you have the option to not fight. Most fights however, especially with weapons/'knives...well you are in the fight and can't run. Failure to realize this fact is not good.

I advocate moving into the fight as fast as you can and getting offensive as fast as you can...closing that mid distance and start dealing with it. You only have 10ths of seconds to do this. Wasting them defending or trying to run is getting you tore up even more.

Mary Malmros wrote: If you find yourself in ANY kind of fight, it's too late to avoid it...don't you think?

Sorry,
If you are Potentially going to be in any kind of fight, shouldn't you try to avoid it. Is what I mean to say.

Glad you caught that one...

Chris Hein wrote: Sorry, If you are Potentially going to be in any kind of fight, shouldn't you try to avoid it. Is what I mean to say. Glad you caught that one...

Yup of course I agree to this.

However in some cases, whether the person is unarmed or armed does change the decision whether to stand ground or flee.

For e.g., there has been some times in a club where I accidentally bump into a drunk guy and he gets really pissed. Of course I apologize and try to get away first but sometimes that's not enough. There was this one occasion where this rather large and drunk guy grabbed me by my shirt and threatened to punch the shit out of me. I apologized again but sometimes, apologies only serve to make the guy feel more pumped up. He demanded me to bow down to him and kiss his feet.

While his hand was still grabbed onto my shirt, I then applied a nikyo lock and immobilized him while I screamed for the bouncers to take him away.

Now if he was holding a knife to me...I would probably apologize some more and kiss his feet or what not and let him get his way around and even punch/kick me until I could find a moment to flee. After all I think if I placated him enough, as long as I did not get stabbed, it was acceptable to get beat up. That would have been not acceptable if it was a totally unarmed situation.

I totally understand where you are getting at though Chris and I also understand your annoyance.

I'm not saying that both being unarmed means you should kick the snot out of them. It means that both being unarmed, there are more options available. Before a fight there are several pre-fight stages if u can classify it as such, and during those times it is unclear whether you can talk your way out of it and whether it will escalate.

If he threatened to fight, you still have some room to talk and try to avoid the situation. The escalation can still be prevented though of course you're on red alert. Running away at this stage would result in escalation as it would most likely be seen as a sign of weakness and result in him chasing you down. In an unarmed situation, there's still the possibility of trying to resolve things and with the confidence that you can still defend yourself in this situation, there's a longer time you can stay in this 'pre-fight' stage.

However with a knife, the moment he pulls out that knife, I'm outta here!

Alex Lawrence wrote: Aikido is a rough diamond at the moment. Many instructors don't understand the different parts of the art or how they fit together. They also don't understand the cultural back ground that Aikido comes from i.e. ikken hisatsu, one strike decides all. Or maybe they just don't like it because it doesn't fit in with the whole pacifism thing people equate Aikido to. There also needs to be an acknowledgement that the attacking side of the art is as important, if not more important than the defencive part and not just something we do so that we can practice technique.

Very insightful post.

One of the things I was trying to grasp is that out there, against untrained fighters or non-Japanese arts, not all of them are going to do that one strike decides all. Aikido developed in that environment and it is understandable that the techniques are devised as such.

However Aikido is still applicable in those scenarios if practiced and all I was hoping was that Aikido dojos also trained in dealing with these sorts of attacks by just maintaining ma-ai and quick non-committal redirections. A non-committal attack can be redirected easily and what often confuses students is that they try to apply a full technique that will only work against a ikken hisatsu sort of attack.

This is very much still Aikido but an aspect I feel that has been downplayed and options and focus should be given in this area. This would very much address many of the concerns and criticisms people have of Aikido (some of them which have some truth to it).

Carolyn Parkinson wrote: Great points. Our dojo does try to incorporate this type of thinking into beginners classes. There are several different ways we do this. We have worked on some exercises to get us moving "off the line" and out of the way of an attack, we have had classes focused on a comitted attack that strikes true. We do some exercises where we can choose one of several variations of a technique we are doing (changing entrance, etc). Also try to stress in ukemi that it's not about giving up, it's about having the best tactical advantage you can when being in a tactically bad position (safety and responsiveness). Especially in our weapons classes, we stress that, even though it's wooden, it's still a deadly weapon, which helps to give a sense of realism that a strike doesn't always have.

Thanks that sounds similar to what I've been trying out at my dojo and it is nice to find that across the world, you find people making similar discoveries in their dojos

The fault is not with the art itself but perhaps the way it's being taught where there are many pitfalls if we don't sit down and analyze why Aikido is the way it is. Too often, it's the teacher is always right and many dojos that don't encourage questioning. Of course this is a generalization and there are many exceptions to the rule but there's still too many of these kind of dojos that do little to prepare someone for a real self defense situation.

Alex Lawrence wrote: The great thing about Aikido is it's explosiveness. We can just charge people down. I think of it like this: BJJ shoots for the waist and below, Aikido shoots for the waist and above. I use the power of the charge to pin my opponents arms into their body and force them back or I charge in and open up their guard and go for sumi otoshi or uchi kaiten. It's over in three seconds flat. You're a striker? Great, I weigh 13 stone, I'm charging in and though you with my guard protecting my centerline and reaching for you and making atemi, good luck stopping me with one punch, if you even clock on to what's going on in time. The trouble with Aikidoka is that we fight like westerners on the whole. We want to stay mid-range and grind our opponent down. We don't like the idea of ikken hisatsu, of risking everying on one decisive attack japanese stylee and so we get chewed up by those using arts that are suited for mid-range fighting forgetting that those arts get chewed up by close range fighters, like Aikidoka. .

Seems like you are counting on your size to win encounters. Remember that a bull fighter fights bulls way bigger then they are. A good striker has no problems circling, hooking, and keeping distance. While it is true that getting in close may give you an advantage, you make it seem like you are advocating just running at them with your hands up. My small experience in boxing tells me that is universally a bad idea. Further more this would need to be something practice often against someone wearing some boxing gloves doing his best to ring your bell. Otherwise how do you know that you are properly defending yourself as you move in and that your opponent can't just step off the line and drill you with the full force of your body momentum and their strength right in the chin with a nice hook (ever walk into a jab, it's way worse then just getting hit with a jab). This is of course all assuming the person you are about to rush knows he is in a fight. But I'm not thinking you are advocating bum rushing people who mean you no harm?

Although personally, if I was going to fight in close, I'd prefer mauy thai mixed with judo. I see aikido as the range between distance striking and the clinch. Which is of course commonly called the trapping range.

nice article, I use a simple Flow Drill of 1 to 4
low line kick to groin,jab,cross, low thai,which repeats itself in both left & right lead.
this allows me to utillise ANY skill (box,thai,Aiki,MMA)
Start slow then build up the tempo,
there is a counter at each of the entry points
and counter for counter.
its up to you how difficult you want to make it.
hope this is of some use to you and your training.

just to confirm, the flow drill is not fixed, you can change it to begin with a left hook for example, but your reflexes had better be good.

Reuben,
You might enjoy this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxm09...layer_embedded

It's a video of an MMA fighter who uses some "moves" that the YouTube poster compares to some familiar aikido techniques demonstrated by a couple of Aikido teachers (one of whom is Shioda Gozo).

Cady Goldfield wrote: Reuben, You might enjoy this:It's a video of an MMA fighter who uses some "moves" that the YouTube poster compares to some familiar aikido techniques demonstrated by a couple of Aikido teachers (one of whom is Shioda Gozo).

One of the problems that I personally think interferes with a discussion of a video like that is the still-present idea that most Aikido techniques are somehow unique, whereas in reality most of them represent standard techniques (regardless of all possible small variations) that have been around for thousands of years. If you understand that, you can understand why some people think that Aikido techniques are related to Bagua techniques, but most knowledgeable CMA people will understand that those "Bagua techniques" are simply variations of old-standards.

Seeing those techniques in a MMA situation caused no perturbation in my aplomb, whatsoever.

FWIW

Mike

Mike Sigman wrote: One of the problems that I personally think interferes with a discussion of a video like that is the still-present idea that most Aikido techniques are somehow unique, whereas in reality most of them represent standard techniques (regardless of all possible small variations) that have been around for thousands of years. If you understand that, you can understand why some people think that Aikido techniques are related to Bagua techniques, but most knowledgeable CMA people will understand that those "Bagua techniques" are simply variations of old-standards. Seeing those techniques in a MMA situation caused no perturbation in my aplomb, whatsoever. FWIW Mike

MY FWIW comment: I don't know, I thought about this and reviewed the video. To prove Mike correct or incorrect you would have to have the fighter's history and speak to the fighter about the wazas to see if they are from Aikido.

Bagua techniques and Aikido relationship, how could we validate Mike's claim to be true or false. I don' t think I read any where in Aikido such a thing. Not saying it is or isn't possible. I just need the goods to tell me. I am open to being educated. I don' t know everything. I really interested in seeing the connection. I am not making judgements either way. I just need to see the information.

Philip Burgess wrote: MY FWIW comment: I don't know, I thought about this and reviewed the video. To prove Mike correct or incorrect you would have to have the fighter's history and speak to the fighter about the wazas to see if they are from Aikido.

The vid description clearly says:

I know these techniques could apply to a variety of martial arts but I just went with aikido. I don't practice aikido by the way.

That techniques "look similar" doesn't necesarily mean that they specifically stem from this style or that art. FWIW, Aikido "techniques" aren't that unique... many of the same "techniques" can be found in various other MAs - there's only some many ways to lock, pin, throw and hit another human. As the late Jan de Jong once quipped when asked about this "new" BJJ thing... "It's just jujitsu. There's nothing new under the sun..."

The only real difference I would suggest is in the level of sophistication with which Aikido "techniques" are intended to be applied... whatever that means

Bagua techniques and Aikido relationship, how could we validate Mike's claim to be true or false. I don' t think I read any where in Aikido such a thing. Not saying it is or isn't possible.

That's not what Mike's saying at all either...

I just need the goods to tell me. I am open to being educated. I don' t know everything. I really interested in seeing the connection. I am not making judgements either way. I just need to see the information.

Well, you obviously need to get out more. And I would encourage you to do so... and go outside your comfort zone and train in other MAs... with other martial artists.

Till then, you'll just have to take someone else's word prima facie... otherwise, the rest of your post reads vaguely like a personal snipe.

Cady Goldfield wrote: It's a video of an MMA fighter who uses some "moves" that the YouTube poster compares to some familiar aikido techniques demonstrated by a couple of Aikido teachers (one of whom is Shioda Gozo).

Two different fighters in that clip.

Lyoto Machida is the one doing the "kokyu" throws and Shinya Aoki is the one who does the elbow lock.

After another review of the clip, Machida than looks more like he is intending and distinctly doing Aikido. That waza more distinct. But, I am not sure because I don't know his background, can't say for sure. Just speculation.

Shinya Aoki's doing the elbow lock that he could of just fell into and didn't come form any art. There is that possibility. But he does use his hips to make it work. I don't know is background either.

I am sure there are those who know these fighters better than I. I haven't looked into their training background.

My feeling is that any in a fight will work if it takes the opponent by surprise and is something unfamiliar to the opponent to be pulled off and not countered. That can come from any art or a created technique. Point is, in terms of debate, it has to work what ever it is, which is more important than where is comes from. I say this in the simplist term and genuine terms.

It's niceto see Aikido waza (possibly) working in MMA.

Ignatius wrote:

As the late Jan de Jong once quipped when asked about this "new" BJJ thing... "It's just jujitsu. There's nothing new under the sun..." The only real difference I would suggest is in the level of sophistication with which Aikido "techniques" are intended to be applied... whatever that means

Nothing new is correct. I hear this all the time from my fellow Judoka, that BJJ is no different than Judo and it is infact that same as it really came from the same Kodokan Judo. Yes, technically it is correct that there is/was nothing new or special about BJJ.

So why is it that Judo has changed it's rules so dramatically this year? Why is it that I can walk into a Judo Tournament playing by their rules as a Judo White Belt/BJJ Purple Belt and walk out with a third place medal against two other black belts?

Well the difference is as you state Ignatius, how it is pracitced and what emphasis is put on what aspects of the "fight".

So yes, I agree 100%, there are only so many ways to lock or throw a human being...absolutely! As you state though, it is how it is practiced that makes the difference on how well you can do it given a certain set of parameters or conditions.

Aliveness matters, and Aliveness is enough of a factor to make a distinction between two "styles" doing the exact same thing.

When folks make video comparisons like this what they are essentially doing is the classic Cognitive Dissonance Theory example of "Buying a New Car".

http://tip.psychology.org/festinge.html

They are essentially attempting to reduce dissonance through comparison. Festinger proposes there are two ways to solve the problem. 1. Come to the conclusion that you are not going to be a fighter in the ring and dissassociate. 2. Admit that you need the skills and abandon your current processes and adopt ones that will lead you to where you want to go.

However, continuing to say "Hey look at this guy using Aikido in a real fight...." does no good at all since the correalation simply is illogical and does not apply to you personally.

Philip Burgess wrote: After another review of the clip, Machida than looks more like he is intending and distinctly doing Aikido. That waza more distinct. But, I am not sure because I don't know his background, can't say for sure. Just speculation. Shinya Aoki's doing the elbow lock that he could of just fell into and didn't come form any art. There is that possibility. But he does use his hips to make it work. I don't know is background either. I am sure there are those who know these fighters better than I. I haven't looked into their training background.

Why haven't you checked their background?. Not a difficult task.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Ignatius wrote: Nothing new is correct. I hear this all the time from my fellow Judoka, that BJJ is no different than Judo and it is infact that same as it really came from the same Kodokan Judo. Yes, technically it is correct that there is/was nothing new or special about BJJ. So why is it that Judo has changed it's rules so dramatically this year? Why is it that I can walk into a Judo Tournament playing by their rules as a Judo White Belt/BJJ Purple Belt and walk out with a third place medal against two other black belts? Well the difference is as you state Ignatius, how it is pracitced and what emphasis is put on what aspects of the "fight". So yes, I agree 100%, there are only so many ways to lock or throw a human being...absolutely! As you state though, it is how it is practiced that makes the difference on how well you can do it given a certain set of parameters or conditions. Aliveness matters, and Aliveness is enough of a factor to make a distinction between two "styles" doing the exact same thing. When folks make video comparisons like this what they are essentially doing is the classic Cognitive Dissonance Theory example of "Buying a New Car". http://tip.psychology.org/festinge.html They are essentially attempting to reduce dissonance through comparison. Festinger proposes there are two ways to solve the problem. 1. Come to the conclusion that you are not going to be a fighter in the ring and dissassociate. 2. Admit that you need the skills and abandon your current processes and adopt ones that will lead you to where you want to go. However, continuing to say "Hey look at this guy using Aikido in a real fight...." does no good at all since the correalation simply is illogical and does not apply to you personally.

Awesome. I couldn't agree more.