Aikido against a boxer

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

If someone's aikido fundamentally doesn't work. Why would a stick help them. Give two people who can't fight a Jo. And the winner will probably be the most aggressive or athletic guy.

If the Aikido guys Aikido does work then he won't need the stick.

This really is not rocket science.

A kali practitioner probably couldn't win against a boxer withoutsome sort of weapon (assuming all other stuff equal etc. etc.),, giving one a stick absolutely would help. If you give both the kali practitioner and the boxer a stick, and my moneys going to be on the kali guy. Not a failing of the system, the system is just focused around the idea that you carry a weapon on you.

 

[Ryback]

A kali practitioner probably couldn't win against a boxer withoutsome sort of weapon (assuming all other stuff equal etc. etc.),, giving one a stick absolutely would help. If you give both the kali practitioner and the boxer a stick, and my moneys going to be on the kali guy. Not a failing of the system, the system is just focused around the idea that you carry a weapon on you.

I agree with your post.... The only difference is that Aikido has unarmed combat within it anyway, so there is a way for an aikidoka to fight successfully a boxer as long as his skills permit it... But my point is, why should anyone go to face an opponent using less than 100%of what is capable of... And weapons is one of Aikido's great advantages, so why not use them?
And you see now, adding weapons to the picture, how irrelevant the whole Aikido against boxing issue starts looking... You can't compare a martial art to a sport...
But that's of course my point of view, I know there are people with different thoughts on the matter..

 

[drop bear]

A kali practitioner probably couldn't win against a boxer withoutsome sort of weapon (assuming all other stuff equal etc. etc.),, giving one a stick absolutely would help. If you give both the kali practitioner and the boxer a stick, and my moneys going to be on the kali guy. Not a failing of the system, the system is just focused around the idea that you carry a weapon on you.

Give anybody a stick and they are more likely to win.

My point being if your unarmed doesn't work. Why would you weapon training?

 

[hoshin1600]

A kali practitioner probably couldn't win against a boxer withoutsome sort of weapon (assuming all other stuff equal etc. etc.),, giving one a stick absolutely would help. If you give both the kali practitioner and the boxer a stick, and my moneys going to be on the kali guy. Not a failing of the system, the system is just focused around the idea that you carry a weapon on you.

But in your example you have changed the dynamic by having the boxer use a stick as well. A boxer with a stick is a hindrance not an advantage. So you double dipped, the Kali guy gets a force multiplier and the boxer gets a handy cap.

To @drop bear point, yes the aikido guys art still may have fundamental flaws but depending on the weapon used there will be different levels of multiplied force. A short stick is different from a long stick, a knife is more dangerous than a piece of wood and a gun is effective at distance. At some point that force multiplier weapon will have enough leverage in the equation to overcome. But at lower levels your point holds true. If your hand skills suck so will your hand held weapon skills.

 

[Buka]

Style vs style is just so much bullship.

Play that game at your own peril.

 

[hoshin1600]

Style vs style is just so much bullship.

Play that game at your own peril.

As long as your not emotionally invested in an outcome, it's pretty much the same as fantasy football. It's kinda fun and doesnt mean a whole lot in the real world.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Hello everyone!!
I would like to share some thoughts with you about the subject of the thread...
Even though it's pretty clear to me why such a topic is very attractive, I think that such comparisons are a bit hard to make....
First of all there is a distinction between a martial art and a combative sport and in this case Aikido is a martial art and Boxing is a sport so it is a comparison between two different things.
One thing that we should make clear is what do we mean when we say "Aikido vs Boxing"? Is it in a sparring context or in a self defense context.
Aikido has no sparring (ok, with the Tomiki exception) and there are a lot of reasons for that but if we could gather them all under one phrase it could have been "because it is not a sport"! But if, for argument's sake, we would try to compare Aikido with Boxing is a sparring frame what would we have?
If the boxer was allowed to use all of his Boxing then the aikidoka should have been allowed to use all of his Aikido in order to make the comparison, and Aikido is not only tai-jutsu. So I would there be any reason to talk about a boxer using short fast jabs or strong punches or whatever against a person with a bokken or a jo?
Now in the second scenario, when it is a self defense situation and the attacker happens to be a boxer... Well, if it's a real situation, you don't know beforehand that you are gonna be attacked, you don't know what are your attacker's skills and he doesn't know that you are an Aikidoka, so he would not attack thinking how not to be taken into Kote gaeshi or shiho Nage or whatever... He would simply attack with what he has and the aikidoka would defend according to the level of his skill and ability....
Still, if there could be an answer to the whole thread I think that if an aikidoka is getting attacked with punches and strikes, he shouldn't try to stay away from them but enter! Dive into the attack, deflecting the strikes and get himself into a position where he can apply an Aikido technique...
All of the above of course is just my opinion, a reflection of my personal experience, every opinion is respected...

Saying Aikido has no sparring because it's not a sport, IMO, misses the utility of sparring as a training tool. And drawing a hard distinction between "art" and "sport" misses the utility of sport (competition) as a training tool. I also don't think it's useful to discuss weapons vs empty-hand as if that were equal. A well-trained boxer will demolish someone who can't handle fast, direct, balanced, controlled, straight strikes. Those are not Aikido's strong point. Most Aikido schools don't teach that kind of strike, so their students can't really train against them. It's a limitation of how most Aikido schools train.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If someone's aikido fundamentally doesn't work. Why would a stick help them. Give two people who can't fight a Jo. And the winner will probably be the most aggressive or athletic guy.

If the Aikido guys Aikido does work then he won't need the stick.

This really is not rocket science.

I agree, except that someone who's well trained with a jo will probably beat someone who's not well trained with a jo. I'm not familiar enough with Aikido's jowaza to know how it would fare against a competent boxer, but if the boxer doesn't know how to use a jo, he's probably better off ditching it after he uses it as a shield to get inside.

 

[now disabled]

That's way too philosophical for me.

Anyway, from a superficial standpoint, I'm with you. Blending - as I learned the term - is a recognizable approach. I didn't see much of it in the MMA guy (and none of it in the Aikido guy). The pivot outside shown in that video is probably the most extreme version. The clearest version I know of is simply this: I punch with a right round, and you step forward with your right (to my left - close to my shoulder), then pivot as my punch causes me to pivot. If you added a technique with that (just think a simple arm drag on my punching arm as you pivot), you'd be blending your movement with mine to accelerate what I do into something I can't easily resist (too much circular/angular momentum). I'm hoping that's a clearer picture than I think it is.

Others may have a different definition of "blending", and might fit better what the MMA guys is doing in the video.

That guy was a really showing and excercise as opposed to any technique. It would have looked better if he had an actual Aikidoka doing it with him as opposed to a person who doesn't. I know I know and can hear the yells of set up set up staged lol and yup it is staged as it is and excercise for both (uke and nage) not one for both to feel the "blend" if that is what you want to call it lol.

that was proved in one part when the uke actually came to a right angle with the nage (guy who was doing the talking) and that is not blending lol and what that excercise is for lol . when that happened it created the opening really lol and was not a good example at all imo

Also ( and I am gonna take issue with that guy over this lol) saying that Aikido has no punches and that you have to wait for an attack ...That is bull crap total bull lol (sorry) there are plenty of atemi in Aikido and from all different places it just they are not usually taught or shown and there are no drills for teaching them (which I will come on to imo why lol) so there is the belief that there are none and I'm sick of telling folks there are lol. Also this bull about having to wait for an attack is that lol... Yes ok it is portrayed as that and jeez has it gone overboard there and been kinda misunderstood. You don't have to bleeding wait at all you can draw an attack as in make your opponent attack and there by create your opening. Think of when you offer your hand for a handshake the other offers his there by you are initiating (to simple lol) well think on this (ok it not an aggressive situation ) if you offer your hand and it is close to you (collapsing in) then he will extend and there by has (maybe unwittingly) gained the advantage however if you extend then just at point of contact very slightly retract then you have gained the advantage (confused ???) lol ...You have in so doing "blended" (musubi) (Aiki) you have his centre (you may not know it but you have) and have created the advantage and just by extending and relaxing. I know a lot will yell and say bull crap but you actually do yes that example is very simple and not in an aggressive environment but it can be applied in that principle to draw an attack as if you move and offer in a certain way you'd be surprised at how another will react lol.

Ok that may have made no sense at all lol but that is what that and other excercises actually teach lol ...it not just the movement it the feel of the movement

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I agree with your post.... The only difference is that Aikido has unarmed combat within it anyway, so there is a way for an aikidoka to fight successfully a boxer as long as his skills permit it... But my point is, why should anyone go to face an opponent using less than 100%of what is capable of... And weapons is one of Aikido's great advantages, so why not use them?
And you see now, adding weapons to the picture, how irrelevant the whole Aikido against boxing issue starts looking... You can't compare a martial art to a sport...
But that's of course my point of view, I know there are people with different thoughts on the matter..

You used the self-defense rationale earlier - that you wouldn't know you were facing an Aikidoka, so wouldn't be purposely countering the techniques. Well, the Aikidoka probably won't be holding a jo, on the expectation of facing a boxer. It goes both ways.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

there are plenty of atemi in Aikido and from all different places it just they are not usually taught or shown

If they aren't taught or shown in the system, they aren't in the system. They should be (O-sensei said they should), but they aren't. I've been to more than a few Aikido schools, sometimes training there for several days. I've literally never seen a single strike taught. Shioda's and Tomiki's branches would be quite different, and I'm sure there are some schools within the other parts of the art that teach them, but it's not something I've ever run into.

You don't have to bleeding wait at all you can draw an attack as in make your opponent attack and there by create your opening.

I can do things to make an attack more likely, but I cannot make an attacker do anything. If you need the attack, you have to wait for it. If you need a certain kind of attack (with weight commitment near, at, or beyond the balance point), you have to wait for it.

 

[now disabled]

If they aren't taught or shown in the system, they aren't in the system. They should be (O-sensei said they should), but they aren't. I've been to more than a few Aikido schools, sometimes training there for several days. I've literally never seen a single strike taught. Shioda's and Tomiki's branches would be quite different, and I'm sure there are some schools within the other parts of the art that teach them, but it's not something I've ever run into.

You are right sir they are rarely taught

I early on in my training asked why we were not taught them and why there were no drills for same like in Karate for instance (just picking a striking art lol) and I was told that when O'sensei started teaching and developing Aikido the people he taught already knew how to strike etc so he just didn't include drills for that he focused on the techniques etc

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You are right sir they are rarely taught

I early on in my training asked why we were not taught them and why there were no drills for same like in Karate for instance (just picking a striking art lol) and I was told that when O'sensei started teaching and developing Aikido the people he taught already knew how to strike etc so he just didn't include drills for that he focused on the techniques etc

That's the same conclusion I came to - largely influenced by Stan Pranin's explanation of it. It also explains some of the holes in Aikido's expression today - those would have been filled by what I'd call "foundation" knowledge - basic throws and takedowns that aren't as "aiki", so wouldn't have been much taught when studying Aikido if all (or perhaps even most) of the students already had them.

 

[now disabled]

Oh I know some will jumpup and down and yell that it a flaw in Aikido and yes in alot of the styles it most certainly is a flaw esp if the person doesn't know how to punch kick etc and has no clue as to where to strike.

I actually sent my girls to a TKD school to learn that lol

 

[now disabled]

That's the same conclusion I came to - largely influenced by Stan Pranin's explanation of it. It also explains some of the holes in Aikido's expression today - those would have been filled by what I'd call "foundation" knowledge - basic throws and takedowns that aren't as "aiki", so wouldn't have been much taught when studying Aikido if all (or perhaps even most) of the students already had them.

I agree with you again

Pranin was influenced by Saito sensei and he did teach atemi lol it just got lost along the road in other styles

It probably is the case that it is assumed that people can see the strikes themselves or and know how to execute them, when most often they don't lol.

I know there are great arguments as to history but I do firmly believe that back when O'sensei was developing/forming/creating he did overlook the future that students might not know how to strike and where to strike and at what point to strike as the people he was teaching etc already knew that.

I would also offer the tentative suggestion that the second doshu had an influence on that to (not denouncing him in anyway as he was the one responsible for Aikido spreading not O'sensei) and that I feel and sense had a lot to do with the post war and getting Aikido out there... He "took out" or avoided call it what you will, the strikes etc to make it more acceptable to the powers that be and enabled him to get permitted to teach there by make a living. I may be totally off beam there just things I was told long time ago lol.

Also oomoto did have a major effect on O'sensei later in life and some have chosen to follow more that path and offshoots of it and hence Aikido gets the rep it does.

None of the present Shihan will ever publicly say anything for some did in the past and it caused umm splits but if you ever got the chance to get them privately etc they would ummm well you get the drift lol

To me the way Aikido is taught in many places is an excellent and very complete Art after you have learned the basics of striking as if you couple the strikes with Aikido then it becomes a different ball game and as I said they drop or better explain this waiting and passive crap lol then it might be viewed differently lol

 

[now disabled]

do things to make an attack more likely, but I cannot make an attacker do anything. If you need the attack, you have to wait for it. If you need a certain kind of attack (with weight commitment near, at, or beyond the balance point), you have to wait for it.

I see where you are coming from it maybe a different view that I have or just my wording was confusing.

Your right you cannot make a person do anything (ok you can lol) I guess what I am getting at is your leading him (if that makes sense) and that may be by instigating like I said by the way you put out your hand in the handshake scenario. Waiting yes I get what you are saying, again what I am getting at is the wait is proactive not necessarily reactive. Ok it will not fit every instance just my take.

A certain kind of attack yes again I get that, what I am saying is that it is possible to influence that attack into where you might want it . Ok this hypothetical but just my thinking.

for example (again very simplified)

A guy or (or guys for that matter) face you up on a street, they think you are an easy target . You think ok this gonna get hairy lol... You can't run as that not an option as they are gonna chase you down or your in a part of town you don't know so running could lead to more grief. So it gonna be a confrontation. They are mouthing of and giving the usual crap about what they are going to do etc. They are both in front of you acting the tough guys, you do not know where the first attack is gonna come from or from whom so you take up a fighting stance (that to me is leading and initiating) letting them know ok you want me come get it so to speak and in so doing you have preempted the "fight" leading them to understand that it is going to happen if they want to rob you etc. Even in taking up the stance can be a lead as if you position yourself in a way that one has to go through other to get to you or the lead has then been put in the position he has to lead to me is initiating as you are setting or trying to set the contact. Yes there is waiting but that need not be passive and yes you have to wait for the attack to come but to me that in doing certain things you are being proactive and initiating and leading to your advantage (or hopefully so)

I know very simple and yes holes can be picked in it but just trying to give an example and no it not a scenario to be oh do this or that it merely to try (probably not well) to illustrate a point or try to lol.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

But in your example you have changed the dynamic by having the boxer use a stick as well. A boxer with a stick is a hindrance not an advantage. So you double dipped, the Kali guy gets a force multiplier and the boxer gets a handy cap.

To @drop bear point, yes the aikido guys art still may have fundamental flaws but depending on the weapon used there will be different levels of multiplied force. A short stick is different from a long stick, a knife is more dangerous than a piece of wood and a gun is effective at distance. At some point that force multiplier weapon will have enough leverage in the equation to overcome. But at lower levels your point holds true. If your hand skills suck so will your hand held weapon skills.

I gave him a stick because drop bear had assumed whomever had a stick would win. The boxer doesnt need to have a stick, the outcome would probably be the same.
Regarding the hand skill thing-yup! And kali has unarmed as well that is practiced. Its an important part. But im not going to assume that i will be better at something thats probably a quarter of the curriculum for me (as a pure kali guy, ignoring my background) then someone that practices that as 100% of their curriculum.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Give anybody a stick and they are more likely to win.

My point being if your unarmed doesn't work. Why would you weapon training?

If you always have a weapon on you. I know some people that carry about 4 knives on them at any time, practice drawing it quickly, and practice getting it out under pressure (not nearly as easy as it seems). Like i replied to hoshin, some hand skill is important, but if im pretty sure ill have a knife on me in a confrontation (and im actually willing to pull a knife on someone) then that becomes an important part of an SD conversation.

 

[Ryback]

Saying Aikido has no sparring because it's not a sport, IMO, misses the utility of sparring as a training tool. And drawing a hard distinction between "art" and "sport" misses the utility of sport (competition) as a training tool. I also don't think it's useful to discuss weapons vs empty-hand as if that were equal. A well-trained boxer will demolish someone who can't handle fast, direct, balanced, controlled, straight strikes. Those are not Aikido's strong point. Most Aikido schools don't teach that kind of strike, so their students can't really train against them. It's a limitation of how most Aikido schools train.

Thanks for offering your thoughts, I respect them a lot even though I don't agree.
Yes it's true, I dismiss sparring or sports as a training tool for martial arts, at least that's my point of view.
As for the rest of your post, I don't know if there are many Aikido schools that don't teach ways of deflecting strong, fast blows but the way I train we do it all the time. So Aikido as a martial art has the potential of defense against such strikes, and there is also a lot of atemi waza and Keri waza in Aikido, if people don't study it, well...each once of us is making his choice and I respect all of them, but I stick with mine...

 

[Ryback]

You used the self-defense rationale earlier - that you wouldn't know you were facing an Aikidoka, so wouldn't be purposely countering the techniques. Well, the Aikidoka probably won't be holding a jo, on the expectation of facing a boxer. It goes both ways.

Right. In the self defense scenario the aikidoka is not carrying a jo waiting to confront a boxer it all happens randomly.
But when I said about the weapons I wasn't implying that Aiki tai-jutsu, unarmed techniques wouldn't work against a boxer, they work pretty fine if you know what to do with them. What I meant is that if the aikidoka has a fighting rendezvous with a boxer he shouldn't show up with less than 100% of his skills, and weapons is one skill that he has and the boxer hasn't.
In the self defense scenario everything is unexpected so you just blend in with the attacker according to your skills and experience... Tai-jutsu techniques, a strategic way of movement, atemi waza, kicks, you name it, you use anything and it's all Aikido, at least the way I practice.
Now if there are Aikido schools that don't train that way, I respect that too, whatever makes them feel good it's fine with me. But I approach the whole matter from my point of view, not knocking anyone though...