Aikido against a boxer

[hoshin1600]

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

Does this mean you apply your Aikido to a boxers jab, hook, overhand right and uppercut.....or you just do munetsuki, yokomen uchi and shomen uchi and because you think they are done with some power that it's the same.

 

[Ryback]

Does this mean you apply your Aikido to a boxers jab, hook, overhand right and uppercut.....or you just do munetsuki, yokomen uchi and shomen uchi and because you think they are done with some power that it's the same.

I don't mean that I train with boxers and when things are getting technical it's not easy to explain verbally....
I study and practice in every possible way but it's mostly the approach that matters. It doesn't matter how strong or fast someone attacks or how big he is. The techniques, should they be executed correctly must be able to work against anything since you don't react, you simply become one with what the attacker is giving you, whether it is committed or not, and that's not a theoretical, philosophical mumbo jumbo, it's tangible fighting strategy...

 

[pdg]

I don't mean that I train with boxers and when things are getting technical it's not easy to explain verbally....
I study and practice in every possible way but it's mostly the approach that matters. It doesn't matter how strong or fast someone attacks or how big he is. The techniques, should they be executed correctly must be able to work against anything since you don't react, you simply become one with what the attacker is giving you, whether it is committed or not, and that's not a theoretical, philosophical mumbo jumbo, it's tangible fighting strategy...

If you don't train with boxers and you don't spar then you by definition do not study or practice in every possible way.

And with no disrespect to the art or it's practitioners, the only time I've ever seen the techniques executed correctly enough to work "against anything" is when it's been choreographed...

I've seen plenty of instances where one aikidoka pretends to do what they think are boxing (or any other art) moves and another defends to demonstrate how it works.

Honestly, no word of a lie, I would love to spar against a skilled aikidoka to play with my interpretation of TKD and their aikido, but I don't see it happening.

 

[drop bear]

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.

Yeah but a way of determining if you are well trained with a Jo is if any of your system works.

So if the unarmed works you could at least assume the weapon system has merit.

That is ultimately how you compare these systems.

(And as a side note boxing gloves and head gear would provide protection against a stick.)

 

[drop bear]

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.

Yeah but weapons are not a reflection on the system.

I mean OK you have a knife. But I have a gun. But you call the police. But I just move to a nicer neighborhood. So boxing wins?

 

[hoshin1600]

It doesn't matter how strong or fast someone attacks or how big he is

Actually it does. But maybe not the way you think. No offense intended but I have never met an akidoka who new how to punch. A munetsuki is not a punch it's a thrust. They have totally different mechanics. So it's not the strength or speed that actually matters but rather the mechanics that are created by proper punching with strength and speed. A munetsuki thrust doesn't come anywhere near the kinetic force generated by a boxers punch. Not even in the same ball park. Second factor is the speed a good boxers punch will be like a 100 mile an hour fast ball coming at you, combine that with the fact that boxers punch from half (or less ) the distance aikidoka are familiar with and that fast ball punch is going to have hit you and retracted ready to hit again before you even acknowledge that you got hit. Third factor is the angles of a punch VS munetsuki. If you train against a tsuki the angle will be different, your muscle memory will react to that angle even though this time it's a punch coming from a different angle. Now remember that speed? Well your eyes will not have time to differentiate that angle. All this compounds into a very difficult situation for aikidoka. if you only train your technique against the three standard aiki strikes.

EDIT: I forgot the biggest factor is boxers (and karate for that matter) train to punch and maintain their center. They are not going to get drawn out and extended.

 

[drop bear]

Style vs style is just so much bullship.

Play that game at your own peril.

So no style is better and everyone gets a medal.

 

[drop bear]

 

[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.

Sorry just going to re visit this concept.

Even if you do a weapons system there is no reason your unarmed if you do it needs to be a dud.

So if kali train unarmed their unarmed should work. I am not sure why that would be such a big ask. And absolutely is a fault of the system.

If I trained weapons in MMA then the weapon system should work. And I would test it against other weapon systems.

We are not comparing kendo to bjj here.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah but a way of determining if you are well trained with a Jo is if any of your system works.

So if the unarmed works you could at least assume the weapon system has merit.

That is ultimately how you compare these systems.

(And as a side note boxing gloves and head gear would provide protection against a stick.)

I'm not sure I agree that evaluating one part of a system tells you much about a different part of the system. If my kicks are fantastic, that doesn't mean I've also taught good stickwork. Or did I miss your point?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Actually it does. But maybe not the way you think. No offense intended but I have never met an akidoka who new how to punch. A munetsuki is not a punch it's a thrust. They have totally different mechanics. So it's not the strength or speed that actually matters but rather the mechanics that are created by proper punching with strength and speed. A munetsuki thrust doesn't come anywhere near the kinetic force generated by a boxers punch. Not even in the same ball park. Second factor is the speed a good boxers punch will be like a 100 mile an hour fast ball coming at you, combine that with the fact that boxers punch from half (or less ) the distance aikidoka are familiar with and that fast ball punch is going to have hit you and retracted ready to hit again before you even acknowledge that you got hit. Third factor is the angles of a punch VS munetsuki. If you train against a tsuki the angle will be different, your muscle memory will react to that angle even though this time it's a punch coming from a different angle. Now remember that speed? Well your eyes will not have time to differentiate that angle. All this compounds into a very difficult situation for aikidoka. if you only train your technique against the three standard aiki strikes.

EDIT: I forgot the biggest factor is boxers (and karate for that matter) train to punch and maintain their center. They are not going to get drawn out and extended.

Add in that munetsuki also tends to carry weight further forward - over the front leg. That changes what's available.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I didn't watch the whole thing, but I liked the short fight clip and the guy's comments afterward about training methods.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sorry just going to re visit this concept.

Even if you do a weapons system there is no reason your unarmed if you do it needs to be a dud.

So if kali train unarmed their unarmed should work. I am not sure why that would be such a big ask. And absolutely is a fault of the system.

If I trained weapons in MMA then the weapon system should work. And I would test it against other weapon systems.

We are not comparing kendo to bjj here.

I think it's a matter of focus. If you spend only 25% of your training on one area, it will be weaker than someone who spends 100% of their training in that area, all else being equal.

 

[drop bear]

I think it's a matter of focus. If you spend only 25% of your training on one area, it will be weaker than someone who spends 100% of their training in that area, all else being equal.

Yes. But that is still the system at fault. If I spent 25% of my time doing weapons. I still judge that of a guy who spends 100%.

That is why we do BJJ competitions. So we can gauge the effectiveness of our grappling.

Not so I can say I would have won if I was allowed to hit people.

 

[drop bear]

I'm not sure I agree that evaluating one part of a system tells you much about a different part of the system. If my kicks are fantastic, that doesn't mean I've also taught good stickwork. Or did I miss your point?

See unless we test a system we don't know if it works.

Now if we test part of a system and it doesn't work and haven't tested another part. Because I assume Aikidokas are not winning sword fights any time soon. My assumption would be that doesn't work until I tested it either.

Now if you are cleaning house in sword fights different story.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

So if kali train unarmed their unarmed should work. I am not sure why that would be such a big ask. And absolutely is a fault of the system.

While I appreciate the general concept you are trying to put forth here ...

Most forms of Kali (and most other FMAs) are primarily weapons based systems. Empty hand techniques typically make up only a very small percentage of training time. Based on that alone, you wouldn't expect a pure Kali practitioner to be evenly matched against an equally trained pure boxer in a fist fight.

Fortunately, there is plenty of evidence that Kali can work very well in a weapons context, so we don't need to evaluate their weapons work based on their unarmed curriculum.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes. But that is still the system at fault. If I spent 25% of my time doing weapons. I still judge that of a guy who spends 100%.

That is why we do BJJ competitions. So we can gauge the effectiveness of our grappling.

Not so I can say I would have won if I was allowed to hit people.

I don't think it's a flaw, if the system is intended to be that way. So, for instance, I spend maybe 10% (that's probably a gross exaggeration) of my time teaching anything weapon-related. Compare that to Kali, and none of my students (nor me) would fare well against almost any of them with weapons. But that's not a flaw of my approach - it's the intent. Mine is intended to be empty-hand focused, with some rudimentary weapons work to give a base for using them. It's not intended to create experts - I don't have the time to teach to that level (even if I was at that level, myself). Same for the groundwork I teach. If someone wants to develop expertise in groundwork, I'd suggest they add BJJ or wrestling to their training. If they want expertise in weapons, they need to train someplace that focuses much more on weapons.

 

[drop bear]

While I appreciate the general concept you are trying to put forth here ...

Most forms of Kali (and most other FMAs) are primarily weapons based systems. Empty hand techniques typically make up only a very small percentage of training time. Based on that alone, you wouldn't expect a pure Kali practitioner to be evenly matched against an equally trained pure boxer in a fist fight.

Fortunately, there is plenty of evidence that Kali can work very well in a weapons context, so we don't need to evaluate their weapons work based on their unarmed curriculum.

Which if there is evidence of skills in that area the statement can be made.

I don't think it can be made as some sort of hypothetical 1 up.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

See unless we test a system we don't know if it works.

Now if we test part of a system and it doesn't work and haven't tested another part. Because I assume Aikidokas are not winning sword fights any time soon. My assumption would be that doesn't work until I tested it either.

Now if you are cleaning house in sword fights different story.

I agree with the first sentence. I'm not sure how that relates to one part of a system proving another part. I mean, I see your point about making a working assumption from one part. That's a useful place to start from until you have better info. But if you assessed my striking ability based on my groundwork, the resulting assumption would be highly flawed.

 

[drop bear]

I don't think it's a flaw, if the system is intended to be that way. So, for instance, I spend maybe 10% (that's probably a gross exaggeration) of my time teaching anything weapon-related. Compare that to Kali, and none of my students (nor me) would fare well against almost any of them with weapons. But that's not a flaw of my approach - it's the intent. Mine is intended to be empty-hand focused, with some rudimentary weapons work to give a base for using them. It's not intended to create experts - I don't have the time to teach to that level (even if I was at that level, myself). Same for the groundwork I teach. If someone wants to develop expertise in groundwork, I'd suggest they add BJJ or wrestling to their training. If they want expertise in weapons, they need to train someplace that focuses much more on weapons.

Same thing pretty much. When we are comparing systems and trying to work out advantages and weaknesses.

If a boxer can flog you and you don't want them to. You need to realize that and address it.