Aikido hate

[Spinedoc]

The term "ka" is written with this character: 家. It refers to a house, or family (also pronounced "ke"), and the term "do-ka" (道家) then is used to refer to a professional, or senior practitioner... the term by itself typically refers to a Taoist scholar, by the way... so an Aikido-ka would be a professional, or senior practitioner of Aiki. You may note that the "do" suffix is not repeated... you are an Aikido-ka, you practice Aikido, and you attend an Aikido-jo (a place for Aikido).

The term for an "ordinary" member is "in" (員), meaning "member"... so the full term is Aikido-in 合気道員.

The distinction is that an Aikido-ka is someone who is able to practice the entire art (so has been exposed to the breadth of the art), whereas an Aikido-in is a member who is studying the art still.

Partially, yeah... but it's also because the types of attacks aren't literally representative of sword (in terms of mechanics), but more in terms of attack angles... which realistically is what Aikido practices against...

Just a small point... Go no Sen is a responsive timing. Sen no Sen is a simultaneous counter to the attack, and Sen Sen no Sen is to pre-emptively attack... what you're describing sounds more like Sen no Sen to me... which I'd agree with.

Well, apparently so, as it's not mystical, and that video is not an example of it....

1. This is essentially exactly what the visitor from Japan told me about the usage of Aikido-ka. He basically stated that that terminology was only viable when talking about someone high ranking and notable in the art. To use it as a blanket term for Aikido students was not only incorrect, when I come to Japan, it could be considered an insult.

2. Agreed on the angles, which is why I was trying to expound on the fact that as you rise in your training in Aikido you eventually come to the realization that the attack really doesn't matter. The attack only matters in how you blend with the energy being delivered, and that is really all that matters. While I agree with Tony that the attacks utilized by most Aikido practitioners leave a lot to be desired from a sword perspective, I also said that it really didn't matter, because it was more about the energy being delivered...IOW, I agree with you Chris.

3. Interesting. I've always heard it described as Go no Sen, but perhaps Sen no Sen is more descriptive. I appreciate your feedback on that.

4. Absolutely agreed. That video is NOT an example of Aiki concepts.

Mike

 

[Tony Dismukes]

The term "ka" is written with this character: 家. It refers to a house, or family (also pronounced "ke"), and the term "do-ka" (道家) then is used to refer to a professional, or senior practitioner... the term by itself typically refers to a Taoist scholar, by the way... so an Aikido-ka would be a professional, or senior practitioner of Aiki. You may note that the "do" suffix is not repeated... you are an Aikido-ka, you practice Aikido, and you attend an Aikido-jo (a place for Aikido).

The term for an "ordinary" member is "in" (員), meaning "member"... so the full term is Aikido-in 合気道員.

The distinction is that an Aikido-ka is someone who is able to practice the entire art (so has been exposed to the breadth of the art), whereas an Aikido-in is a member who is studying the art still.

Are the same rules applied to other arts? Is a regular practitioner of Judo or Karate referred to as a Judo-in or Karate-in?

 

[Psilent Knight]

Okay, this conversation has moved quite a bit over the last few days. I'll try to catch up succinctly:I don't think we are too far apart. I would say, in your example, it's how you trained. Let's say I train MMA in the manner that aikido is often trained, with compliant exercises and a lack of competition. And let's say you train Aikido in the manner MMA is often trained, with consistent pressure testing and a competitive objective. I would expect you to be better able to apply your skills than I. It just makes sense. Your training model lends itself to application.

I partly agree with this as well since I did state earlier that I believe that Aikido and any other legitimate martial art can be very effective if it's trained appropriately. So yes, I think Aikido trained in the manner that MMA is trained will stand a person in better stead than muay Thai trained the way Aikido or point Karate is trained.

BUT (and you should've known this was coming) at the end of the day I still am of the mindset that it ultimately boils down to the individual fighter. I cannot stress this enough. And I still believe that realistic combat experience goes a long way. So even if a person trains Aikido the way MMA is trained or trained actual MMA I still think if they lack the realistic life-or-death fighting experience of that ex con who did 10 or 15 years upstate the ex con's history and background makes him the better fighter, with or without Martial Arts training.

I'm very leery of using elite level athletes as a comparative. It can be useful, if used judiciously. Lyoto Machida is an elite level athlete, and I'd say an elite level Karateka. Certainly, he is an elite level MMAist. As a black belt in BJJ, he may not be able to dominate other elite MMAists on the ground, but we're talking about a very small universe of martial artists in this group.

I use elite level athletes especially in sport grappling because that particular sport is one in which the wheat is separated from the chaff. When you have a Damian Maia or BJ Penn or Rickson Gracie or even Makenzie Dern you have someone who has separated him or herself from the rest of the grappling pack via competition exploits. Lyoto does not have a place at all in that separated pack and does not deserve to have his named mentioned among the ones above when it comes to elite level grapplers.

He certainly could dominate most other grapplers, and I'd argue ALL untrained, non-grapplers on the ground.

He can dominate other non elite level grapplers like himself.

On an individual level, I have seen zero evidence to suggest that training in a martial art (any martial art) makes you safer than doing tae bo, crossfit, parkour or spin class. I have seen evidence that addressing high-risk behaviors, such as drug use/abuse, walking alone at night, etc, do. Also, confidence and a willingness to fight are important.

I am inclined to agree with this.

Also, the bar is not fixed on measuring results. In other words, what "successful self defense" looks like changes depending on the current agenda. If someone is sexually assaulted, but survives, is that successful self defense? Some would say yes. Some would say no (including me).

I don't agree or disagree because this is not something I ever considered or pondered on.

Getting to the point, I'm suspicious of training "for self defense." I can certainly understand training with self defense in mind, but I believe the best way to do that is to incorporate as much variety in one's training as possible, with clear measurements to gauge progress in mind.

This makes sense.

"Attack likely to occur on the street" is an oxymoronic statement. Unless you are professionally at risk, any attack on the street is exceedingly unlikely.

That depends on a lot of factors. The two biggest factors are location and how coded up one is or not coded up at all.

Take Care and Have A Good Day,
Osu!

 

[Steve]

I partly agree with this as well since I did state earlier that I believe that Aikido and any other legitimate martial art can be very effective if it's trained appropriately. So yes, I think Aikido trained in the manner that MMA is trained will stand a person in better stead than muay Thai trained the way Aikido or point Karate is trained.

BUT (and you should've known this was coming) at the end of the day I still am of the mindset that it ultimately boils down to the individual fighter. I cannot stress this enough. And I still believe that realistic combat experience goes a long way. So even if a person trains Aikido the way MMA is trained or trained actual MMA I still think if they lack the realistic life-or-death fighting experience of that ex con who did 10 or 15 years upstate the ex con's history and background makes him the better fighter, with or without Martial Arts training.




I use elite level athletes especially in sport grappling because that particular sport is one in which the wheat is separated from the chaff. When you have a Damian Maia or BJ Penn or Rickson Gracie or even Makenzie Dern you have someone who has separated him or herself from the rest of the grappling pack via competition exploits. Lyoto does not have a place at all in that separated pack and does not deserve to have his named mentioned among the ones above when it comes to elite level grapplers.



He can dominate other non elite level grapplers like himself.



I am inclined to agree with this.



I don't agree or disagree because this is not something I ever considered or pondered on.



This makes sense.



That depends on a lot of factors. The two biggest factors are location and how coded up one is or not coded up at all.

Take Care and Have A Good Day,
Osu!

Not very far apart, I don't think. The only area where it seems we disagree a bit is whether the training model or the individual is paramount to success in training. Something of a chicken/egg situation, maybe. I'll just say it this way. If unexceptional individuals routinely succeed in your program, you're on the right track. If that means losing weight, anyone who puts forth reasonable effort should lose weight. If you're learning BJJ, you should be able to execute techniques correctly against people who are trying to keep you from doing so. If it's for self defense, people need to be making progress toward that goal.

And if "progress" isn't transparent and objective, the training model is broken.

But as you say, the individual has to log the hours.

 

[Steve]

Are the same rules applied to other arts? Is a regular practitioner of Judo or Karate referred to as a Judo-in or Karate-in?

And as a follow up question, what's the correct term for a person who does jiu jitsu ? I've heard jiujitsuka, jiujitsu player, jiujitiero, and luchador. But mostly, people just say "person who does (or trains) jiu jitsu.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

And as a follow up question, what's the correct term for a person who does jiu jitsu ? I've heard jiujitsuka, jiujitsu player, jiujitiero, and luchador. But mostly, people just say "person who does (or trains) jiu jitsu.

I'm partial to "jiujiteiro" for BJJ practitioners, since the use of the Portuguese term makes it clear you're talking about BJJ and not some other branch of the jujutsu/jiu-jitsu family tree. I don't think it really matters that much, though, given the generally casual and varied use of terminology in BJJ. Chris might have some insight into usage among practitioners of Japanese styles. As far as the various American/European branches of jujutsu, I don't know that I've ever heard a practitioner use a specific term other than "practitioner of" or "person who does."

 

[oftheherd1]

Kung Fu Wang said: ↑
There are some strategies used in Aikido that I don't agree with.

1. You always wait for your opponent to attack you. If you have this kind of attitude, you will never get a date with any girlfriend. If you want to take, you have to give first.
2. The contact point is mainly on the wrist. Even if you may have controlled on your opponent's wrist, since his elbow is free, you don't have a full control on that arm.
3. The wrist control keep you and your opponent distance a bit too far. It's not a "clinch". This will give your opponent too much freedom to counter you.
4. If you don't use your leg skill such as cut, spring, sweep, lift, hook, twist, scoop, ... you give your opponent's legs too much freedom. Only use your hand to throw your opponent is not as effective as to use both of your hand and leg to throw. To push/pull the head down and to sweep/hook the leg off is much better strategy.

And... with you not training in Aikido, not having any experience with it, this means what, exactly? Not all arts are the same, John, they don't all have the same values, ideal tactics, or anything else... so saying "if I was doing Aikido, I'd do it this way" is kinda pointless... with all the views I see here of what people think should be done with Aikido (it should have competition, it should have more striking, there should be different training methods, so on and so forth), the simple fact is that, if you do all that, you take it away from being Aikido.... if you want to train Aikido, then train it the way it has been developed... if you don't want to do Aikido the way Aikido is designed, don't do it. Talking about how you'd change it just shows that you (not just you, John) have no appreciation for the range of martial approaches, and can only see the limited values you have, based on your limited experience and grasp.



....

Something I can agree with you on Chris Parker.

I think Kung Fu Wang makes the mistake that many do when trying to compare two different martial arts. It is kind of the saying if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail; so if you try to explain everything from your art's point of view, you will find it difficult to understand other art's point of view. But ...

1. If I attack first (and I assume Aikido has attacks just like the Hapkido I studied) I invite a counter attack. Why not wait for the opponent's attack and counter that?

2. I don't think the wrists are the main point of contact. They are an often used one. But we attack whatever is most convenient in a counter attack. That might be legs, elbows, upper arms, eyes, neck, hair, Pressure points, or just about any other body part that presents itself to attack or manipulation with the least danger to ourselves. But ...

3. I am often bemused by primarily striking or takedown artists who watch a demonstration of a technique, then try it and can't make it work. One of the most common put downs are, you have to make it work against a resisting opponent. But done properly there is no resistance, unlike your practice opponent who is fully informed exactly what you are trying to do. They also don't see that the opponent is being moved in such a way as to prevent the opponent from resisting or counterattacking.

And I have no idea what you mean by keeping an opponent too far away. First, that just sounds silly. If I haven't for some reason got good enough control to prevent him counter attacking, why would I want him closer? But that aside, None of the techniques I learned made a point of keeping an opponent away, but on properly controlling the opponent so he couldn't do anything except what I wanted him to.

And for your information, one of the hardest things I had to learn was not retreating from an attack, but to move into the attack, either straight in, or to the side, as part of my counter attack technique. I'm surprised you didn't mention that.


Oh, and as an aside, I was obviously monumentally lucky that I was already married when I began studying Hapkido, no need to worry about finding aggressively minded or simply women kind enough to assert themselves.

4. In the Hapkido I studied, we certain did use leg skills. But not primarily the way you seem to be saying. They normally fit with the rest of any technique. They kept me balanced, got me where I needed to be for a technique, and attacked the opponent's balance or position. What more do you need your legs to do? EDIT: Oops, I keep reminding myself not to try to answer posts while at work: I meant to point out that often when attacking an opponent's balance or position, we are striking with our feet or knees. We can do anything you can with our feet, but we have a different mindset.

Anything I have said about Hapkido I would assume would apply to Aikido. If not, Chris Parker or any other Aikido practitioner, please correct me.

 

[Cephalopod]

Here you go, Wang:

Tomiki Aikido Federation - Events

Tomiki aikido has tournaments. Will you stop the hate now?

Did you guys catch the video on the site that JP3 linked to (thanks for that btw) ?

I enjoyed watching it. I for one had never seen a vid of Aikido practitioners wielding their craft in a live setting against un-cooperative opponents. Looks like a boat load of fun.

It does make me think that even a well trained MAist, face to face with a knife brandishing baddie, had better be wearing body armor if he wants to throw his assailant to the ground.

 

[Steve]

I'm partial to "jiujiteiro" for BJJ practitioners, since the use of the Portuguese term makes it clear you're talking about BJJ and not some other branch of the jujutsu/jiu-jitsu family tree. I don't think it really matters that much, though, given the generally casual and varied use of terminology in BJJ. Chris might have some insight into usage among practitioners of Japanese styles. As far as the various American/European branches of jujutsu, I don't know that I've ever heard a practitioner use a specific term other than "practitioner of" or "person who does."

Totally agree about the casual nature of BJJ. But it's always a little awkward. I tend to default to "person who does jiu jitsu." I've used all of the terms above, but they all feel weird.

 

[drop bear]

No, not all arts use Aiki. Simply, you are not understanding what it is. It is not countering, and no, counterpunching is not an example of it. It is not anything to do with maximising attacking ability or leaving yourself vulnerable, or anything of the kind.

Other arts just call it good technique.

 

[Buka]

And as a follow up question, what's the correct term for a person who does jiu jitsu ? I've heard jiujitsuka, jiujitsu player, jiujitiero, and luchador. But mostly, people just say "person who does (or trains) jiu jitsu.

We always refer to Brazilian Jiu-jitsu practitioners as "Jits guys". While probably not correct it conveys perfectly within our group.

 

[Steve]

We always refer to Brazilian Jiu-jitsu practitioners as "Jits guys". While probably not correct it conveys perfectly within our group.

Sounds about right.

 

[oftheherd1]

Did you guys catch the video on the site that JP3 linked to (thanks for that btw) ?

I enjoyed watching it. I for one had never seen a vid of Aikido practitioners wielding their craft in a live setting against un-cooperative opponents. Looks like a boat load of fun.

It does make me think that even a well trained MAist, face to face with a knife brandishing baddie, had better be wearing body armor if he wants to throw his assailant to the ground.

Well, I would agree that fighting against a knife wielder requires good skill. It is not to be taken lightly. Any slight miscue can be fatal.

And another problem is that many arts don't seem to train much against knife attacks.

However, I was surprised at the number of times scores appeared to be made. It seemed as if only thrusting attacks were made and they had to be defended by arm throws and/or bars. That would cut down your options if true.

 

[drop bear]

Well, I would agree that fighting against a knife wielder requires good skill. It is not to be taken lightly. Any slight miscue can be fatal.

And another problem is that many arts don't seem to train much against knife attacks.

However, I was surprised at the number of times scores appeared to be made. It seemed as if only thrusting attacks were made and they had to be defended by arm throws and/or bars. That would cut down your options if true.

It is stupid hard to stop a knife if someone is really going for you.

Thats not the fault of the martial arts. That is the fault of the situation.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

However, I was surprised at the number of times scores appeared to be made. It seemed as if only thrusting attacks were made and they had to be defended by arm throws and/or bars. That would cut down your options if true.

I believe the competition rules allow only thrusts with the knife and allow only official Aikido techniques for the person countering the knife.

 

[Cephalopod]

^^^
..which would explain why both attacker and defender seem oblivious to forearm slashes that would make bridging the distance a very bloody business.

Regardless, I maintain that the activity seems like a very enjoyable way of working on movement and body dynamics.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm with Gerry on this. In full contact competition, the attacks are definitely real attacks. On the other hand, the situation as a whole, the likely attacks, the likely setups, the psychology, the tactical and strategic considerations, etc are not the same as they are in the majority of real world violent assaults. There is a lot of useful overlap but there are important differences as well. I think that until we develop holodeck or Matrix technology, any and all training and testing methods are going to be imperfect approximations of real world violence.

Ah, the holodeck solution. I keep waiting for that, then we have a way to actually practice full-tilt-boogie on self-defense situations.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Okay, this conversation has moved quite a bit over the last few days. I'll try to catch up succinctly:I don't think we are too far apart. I would say, in your example, it's how you trained. Let's say I train MMA in the manner that aikido is often trained, with compliant exercises and a lack of competition. And let's say you train Aikido in the manner MMA is often trained, with consistent pressure testing and a competitive objective. I would expect you to be better able to apply your skills than I. It just makes sense. Your training model lends itself to application.
I'm very leery of using elite level athletes as a comparative. It can be useful, if used judiciously. Lyoto Machida is an elite level athlete, and I'd say an elite level Karateka. Certainly, he is an elite level MMAist. As a black belt in BJJ, he may not be able to dominate other elite MMAists on the ground, but we're talking about a very small universe of martial artists in this group. He certainly could dominate most other grapplers, and I'd argue ALL untrained, non-grapplers on the ground. It's perfectly legitimate to critique his grappling relative to others in the sport, provided we remember the context of the critique. Sure, he's not a Damian Maia, but even the worst grappler in the UFC is better than most grapplers, and certainly able to dominate any non-grappler.
I've posted at length on this many times. This is central to why I think self defense training often misses the point entirely. On an individual level, I have seen zero evidence to suggest that training in a martial art (any martial art) makes you safer than doing tae bo, crossfit, parkour or spin class. I have seen evidence that addressing high-risk behaviors, such as drug use/abuse, walking alone at night, etc, do. Also, confidence and a willingness to fight are important.

Also, the bar is not fixed on measuring results. In other words, what "successful self defense" looks like changes depending on the current agenda. If someone is sexually assaulted, but survives, is that successful self defense? Some would say yes. Some would say no (including me).

Getting to the point, I'm suspicious of training "for self defense." I can certainly understand training with self defense in mind, but I believe the best way to do that is to incorporate as much variety in one's training as possible, with clear measurements to gauge progress in mind.

Let's say you and I are golf pros. We each have 100 complete beginners full time for a year. Our goal is the same, teach them to play golf. You have no clear objective. You'll teach them to be "good" at golf, which you intend to measure using video analysis of their swing and computer analytics. You are confident that if you can teach them a technically perfect swing, they will do well. You also never let them hit a ball, as that may corrupt their swing. You are confident that if they have a perfect swing, when they are asked to hit the ball, they will be able to do so.

I measure success by handicap (let's say a 10 handicap or lower), and teach them to play golf as you would expect. I work with them on the driving range and putting green. I give them feedback on their swings in context. And we log some miles on the golf course.

At the end of the year, who do you think will be successful? I think, given 100 unexceptional people full time, it would be remarkable if any of the 100 people in your group could even hit a ball, and if any of the 100 people in my group didn't have a 10 handicap or lower.
"Attack likely to occur on the street" is an oxymoronic statement. Unless you are professionally at risk, any attack on the street is exceedingly unlikely.

The golf analogy is apt. See, what's actually missing in the "technical swing" portion is the mental game, the strategy, etc. Those things aren't the same for self-defense as for competition. As is often the case, there's significant overlap, but they are not identical.

I do understand your point about what else is more useful for self-protection, and that's valid. But it still doesn't cover what to do if that fails. That's where the physical self-defense comes in. And the practice of building that defense helps with many of the mental factors (as does much else that requires commitment and struggle). It's all part of the package, and suits the mindset of a specific group. Many of them won't be as well served by something like Tae Bo, because it just doesn't suit them. I think training specifically for self-defense is the best approach for this group (and I count myself among that group), for a bunch of reasons.

As for the "attack likely" I should have said "attack most likely" - you're right that the chances for most of us are not high that we will ever be attacked, though I think it's not negligible overall, given the number of people I know who have dealt with some level of attack.

 

[hoshin1600]

Ah, the holodeck solution. I keep waiting for that, then we have a way to actually practice full-tilt-boogie on self-defense situations.

Holodeck technology will only become wide spread after the porn industry gets a hold of it....so I'm waiting for that

 

[oftheherd1]

It is stupid hard to stop a knife if someone is really going for you.

Thats not the fault of the martial arts. That is the fault of the situation.

True. One should probably not even attempt to learn knife defense until just before BB or better, after attaining BB. The greater one's skills are, the better the chance of learning to be adept enough to survive. And then those skills need to be practiced often.