Aikido hate

[drop bear]

Just to be clear I wasn't implying that BJJ is a "flawed" system. I just wanted to point out to Steve how his opinion can be used to make that argument. Fwiw, I do think all of those particular PRIDE FC fights were a case of a fighter being better than the people he beat and not because between catch wrestling and BJJ one grappling art is better or worse than the other or one is "flawed".

That doesnt work though. So I wanted to compete in pride. I could do any system?

 

[drop bear]

Competition is the best way to verify skill against competitors. I've outlined before the limitations I see in competition. I think competition (at least "competitive" sparring/rolling within the school) is a necessary element - I haven't seen an alternative I think brings the same benefits. And for some arts, open competition (within the art and beyond) seems to foster better effectiveness. But when techniques don't work in competition (meaning the opportunity for them doesn't come up often enough to be worth trying), but are among the most commonly used in altercations (having to depend upon reports from LEO and bouncers, who have enough encounters to draw any conclusions), then competition isn't developing some of the skills that art brings, and a focus on competition would eventually lead to the de-emphasis of those techniques that worked so well in non-competition application.

Yeah but they are specific cases that then need to be supported on their own right.

The standing sleeper is never used in competition but is a great peice of kit for choking a fool out on the street.

But is pretty easy to varify as a reasonable technique. There are others that are quite hard to varify. And I would be very wary of believing the tough talk of guys who have said they pulled that off.

 

[Tez3]

And I would be very wary of believing the tough talk of guys who have said they pulled that off.

Depend what they pulled off... an arm or leg is hard to dispute when held dangling in someone's fist and they are beating you with the soggy end

 

[DanT]

I think Aikido CAN be an effective martial art if it:

-spars hard
-incorporates striking to set up throws
-practices defending against uncommitted attacks
-practices defending against powerful realistic strikes, not someone running across the room trying to karate chop you in the head

If your aikido involves no touch throws or no touch knockouts or nonsense like that then it's "********". If it does all the things that I think it should do then it could be a great style based on throwing and arm locks.

THEREFORE:
Aikido could be effective if you train to make it effective. But a lot of the aikido I've seen appears to be trained in a style that I wouldn't worry too much about if I were fighting someone using it. Then again if you have someone who's really good at it, and trains hard and realistically, I wouldn't want to fight them. Same thing for most Kung Fu styles. You can dance around like a tiger all you want but if you're not sparring and defending against real attacks and training seriously, you won't develop any fighting ability-sorry. And this is coming from a kung fu guy.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So we are now back to focusing on aiki.

Didn't you just have a hissy fit over me making aikido about aiki. Because of all the other tools at your disposal.

I am not saying aiki doesnt work. It is present in all martial arts to some extent. I am saying your delivery system doesn't work if you have to dumb down the attacks of your training partners. Rather than make your system better to deal with a more competent threat.

You can't train honestly with a bag full of excuses.

Whatever, DB. What I can't do is have a reasonable argument with someone who really doesn't bother to understand. There are many training tools that aren't competition. There are techniques and methods that don't work in competition and do work elsewhere.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah but they are specific cases that then need to be supported on their own right.

The standing sleeper is never used in competition but is a great peice of kit for choking a fool out on the street.

But is pretty easy to varify as a reasonable technique. There are others that are quite hard to varify. And I would be very wary of believing the tough talk of guys who have said they pulled that off.

Locks are pretty easy to verify. Some of them aren't terribly useful for competition.

 

[Steve]

Okay, I don't have a ton of time, but want to try and address a couple of points. First, regarding aiki, gpseymour, it's not just high level black belts. That kind of skill is relative. What I mean is, if you want to be able to get to this "aiki" that you are looking for, pressure testing and a competitive mindset is the way to get there.

Regarding efficacy, I would just suggest that one can be an effective martial artist even if that person will never be a professional fighter. I cringe whenever a discussion starts to go down the Pride, UFC path. People play football and golf without ever considering turning pro. People drive cars and cook wonderful meals. We don't argue against the way people learn these things because of how the pros do things. I think we can glean from the pros, but should remember that at that level, it's not apples to apples.

Regarding person, style or training model, it's entirely the training model. An exceptional person can make pretty much anything work. But the weaknesses within a style will be exposed in a sound training model, not hidden (I'm looking at you, ninja anti-BJJ techniques). Others have addressed several examples in this thread of that happening, including with BJJ and boxing. And in a sound training model, everyone, regardless of native physical ability, will develop skills along a predictable learning curve. Skills that they will be able to perform in context, under pressure. EDIT: Just want to add that in a style without a competitive outlet, you are learning something. It's just not what you think. If you are practicing kata, you will become very, very good at doing kata, for example.

To expand just a bit more on competition, I think that diversity is the key, depending upon your goal. I think some people have a very myopic view of what competition is. I personally believe more is better. In BJJ, for example, if a person competes under only one ruleset, they risk developing some risky habits. But, in addition to sparring in class, there are several different kinds of competitions available. They can compete in judo tournaments, IBJJF tournaments, submission only tournaments, hybrid sub/point tournements, gi, no-gi, and then there's MMA, where striking is introduced. You don't have to be a professional to enter any or all of these tournaments. In fact, most are not.

The guy who actively pursues a variety of competitive tests will be a much more well-rounded MAist than the guy who doesn't.

 

[Spinedoc]

Okay, a lot of good comments here, some ridiculous.

Aikido practicioners or Aikidoists (Please avoid Aikidoka as a term for Aikido practitioners, technically, in Japan, it only refers to a notable, or high ranking, distinguished Aikidoist, for most people it doesn't matter, but I used the term once with a visiting Shihan from Japan, and he wasn't amused, he took me aside to explain the difference after class) get a fair amount of criticism for a variety of reasons from the MMA community. It goes back to a couple of fundamental differences between competitive MA and Aikido.

#1 Aikido is NOT competitive. The techniques were actually derivatives of techniques developed on Japan's feudal battlefields centuries ago. While it is a Gendai art, it's parent art is Daito Ryu (which is Koryu, although questions have been raised about that as well) as well as multiple other arts (O'Sensei also studied in no particular order Kito Ryu, Goto Ha Yagyu Ryu, Judo, Shikage Ryu, and IIRC, Tenjin Shinyo Ryu) which all played a role in the development of Aikido. Battlefield combat is quite a bit different than competitive "ring" sports. On the battlefield, you would often attack full on in order to try and win and deal with the next person. This is substantially different from an attacker who is probing, and focused on only one person, and trying to win. Just different contexts.

#2 Aikido has unrealistic attacks. The attacks in Aikido are all based on sword motions, or how you would move and cut with a sword....without the sword. While many people deride this as unrealistic, there are only so many ways to grab, punch, or strike someone...the attacks do look silly, but at some point in your Aikido journey you make an astonishing discovery.....that is....The attack DOES NOT MATTER...to be honest, I don't care how you attack me, your energy can only be directed at me in so many ways. The only thing the attack does, is potentially change my entry..but otherwise, I honestly don't care.

#3 Aikido does not pressure test. We actually do, with randori, jiyu waza, and other drills, which can be similar to "rolling" in BJJ, but it doesn't look that way. This is actually one criticism that likely has a little merit, but it can vary considerably by dojo...some are quite martial, and you will be pressure tested, and others are more soft, internal, and spiritual. I cannot speak for them.

#4 Aikido looks like a dance. Yes, it certainly can, but the point is.....ukemi is designed first and foremost, to protect uke. So, at higher levels, your ukemi becomes quite proficient, and it can look more dancelike, and a little less realistic. Trust me. Those same techniques executed on someone without proficient ukemi will badly injure them. I tell new students all the time that want to just learn techniques, that you have to focus on learning ukemi too. For example, I cannot do a gensake otoshi to you if you don't know the ukemi, which for that technique is really scary and pretty advanced. So, you have to focus on ukemi in order to progress as well. Most injuries that happen in Aikido, almost always happen because a nage is throwing or executing a technique on an uke who either doesn't know, or cannot properly execute the ukemi.

I practice BJJ as well as Aikido. Aikido is, and will always be, my primary art. Practice what you like. Don't worry about what others think. Their opinion is really not important or relevant at all.

BTW, I was just at a seminar this weekend with an 80 y/o Japanese Shihan who weighed maybe 120 pounds. He threw me so hard, it was ridiculous. He used me as uke as I am a bit bigger and he wanted to demonstrate how to unbalance a bigger, stronger person. He told me to grab hard, which I did......and then he looked at the class, and said...."Hehe, Stronger fall harder..."......BAM, I was down, over and over again, and the more resistance, the harder I fell.

The point behind that story was, that someone watching with, say an MMA background, might go...."that's ********"....yet, I can tell you unequivocably, that I was not just falling, and I was resisting pretty strongly. He was simply unbalancing me quicky, efficiently, and following w fast techniques that took me down.....

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Okay, I don't have a ton of time, but want to try and address a couple of points. First, regarding aiki, gpseymour, it's not just high level black belts. That kind of skill is relative. What I mean is, if you want to be able to get to this "aiki" that you are looking for, pressure testing and a competitive mindset is the way to get there.

Regarding efficacy, I would just suggest that one can be an effective martial artist even if that person will never be a professional fighter. I cringe whenever a discussion starts to go down the Pride, UFC path. People play football and golf without ever considering turning pro. People drive cars and cook wonderful meals. We don't argue against the way people learn these things because of how the pros do things. I think we can glean from the pros, but should remember that at that level, it's not apples to apples.

Regarding person, style or training model, it's entirely the training model. An exceptional person can make pretty much anything work. But the weaknesses within a style will be exposed in a sound training model, not hidden (I'm looking at you, ninja anti-BJJ techniques). Others have addressed several examples in this thread of that happening, including with BJJ and boxing. And in a sound training model, everyone, regardless of native physical ability, will develop skills along a predictable learning curve. Skills that they will be able to perform in context, under pressure. EDIT: Just want to add that in a style without a competitive outlet, you are learning something. It's just not what you think. If you are practicing kata, you will become very, very good at doing kata, for example.

To expand just a bit more on competition, I think that diversity is the key, depending upon your goal. I think some people have a very myopic view of what competition is. I personally believe more is better. In BJJ, for example, if a person competes under only one ruleset, they risk developing some risky habits. But, in addition to sparring in class, there are several different kinds of competitions available. They can compete in judo tournaments, IBJJF tournaments, submission only tournaments, hybrid sub/point tournements, gi, no-gi, and then there's MMA, where striking is introduced. You don't have to be a professional to enter any or all of these tournaments. In fact, most are not.

The guy who actively pursues a variety of competitive tests will be a much more well-rounded MAist than the guy who doesn't.

Okay, I think I see where you and I are differing on this one, Steve. See, I don't think of the competitive points as where to develop most things (except better live readings). Drills and practice are where we develop the skills, and the competitive element is where we test them out. Given how scarce aiki opportunities are (as I define them) in competition with folks who understand grappling, it's not a particularly good place to develop that feel. In fact, it's more likely to foster folks taking the leverage route rather than the aiki route.

I think I need to take some time and refine how I explain my definition of aiki - it seems to confuse everyone but me when I use words to explain it (meaning they get a different definition from my words than the one I'm trying to give).

As for the variety of competition, I agree with you for the most part. I just have no interest in competitions, so have limited that variety to rolling/sparring/playing with folks from different arts on an informal basis, rather than entering competitions. Competitions add some elements that matter less in a short self-defense encounter (the stamina to stay with someone at my own level for several rounds, for instance). I don't know - maybe if I'd had these discussions 20 years ago, I'd have a different attitude. But I do know people who trained their skills without entering competitions, using other training methods, and developed skills that served them well in real encounters (again, looking mostly at LEO's and bouncers). The real differentiator has been testing their skills in various ways, training with good intensity, and being willing to look for flaws in their technique rather than just polishing endlessly without regard to effectiveness. Most of them had experience in more than one art, giving them a more informed filter for evaluating the techniques and applications in each.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Okay, a lot of good comments here, some ridiculous.

Aikido practicioners or Aikidoists (Please avoid Aikidoka as a term for Aikido practitioners, technically, in Japan, it only refers to a notable, or high ranking, distinguished Aikidoist, for most people it doesn't matter, but I used the term once with a visiting Shihan from Japan, and he wasn't amused, he took me aside to explain the difference after class) get a fair amount of criticism for a variety of reasons from the MMA community. It goes back to a couple of fundamental differences between competitive MA and Aikido.

#1 Aikido is NOT competitive. The techniques were actually derivatives of techniques developed on Japan's feudal battlefields centuries ago. While it is a Gendai art, it's parent art is Daito Ryu (which is Koryu, although questions have been raised about that as well) as well as multiple other arts (O'Sensei also studied in no particular order Kito Ryu, Goto Ha Yagyu Ryu, Judo, Shikage Ryu, and IIRC, Tenjin Shinyo Ryu) which all played a role in the development of Aikido. Battlefield combat is quite a bit different than competitive "ring" sports. On the battlefield, you would often attack full on in order to try and win and deal with the next person. This is substantially different from an attacker who is probing, and focused on only one person, and trying to win. Just different contexts.

#2 Aikido has unrealistic attacks. The attacks in Aikido are all based on sword motions, or how you would move and cut with a sword....without the sword. While many people deride this as unrealistic, there are only so many ways to grab, punch, or strike someone...the attacks do look silly, but at some point in your Aikido journey you make an astonishing discovery.....that is....The attack DOES NOT MATTER...to be honest, I don't care how you attack me, your energy can only be directed at me in so many ways. The only thing the attack does, is potentially change my entry..but otherwise, I honestly don't care.

#3 Aikido does not pressure test. We actually do, with randori, jiyu waza, and other drills, which can be similar to "rolling" in BJJ, but it doesn't look that way. This is actually one criticism that likely has a little merit, but it can vary considerably by dojo...some are quite martial, and you will be pressure tested, and others are more soft, internal, and spiritual. I cannot speak for them.

#4 Aikido looks like a dance. Yes, it certainly can, but the point is.....ukemi is designed first and foremost, to protect uke. So, at higher levels, your ukemi becomes quite proficient, and it can look more dancelike, and a little less realistic. Trust me. Those same techniques executed on someone without proficient ukemi will badly injure them. I tell new students all the time that want to just learn techniques, that you have to focus on learning ukemi too. For example, I cannot do a gensake otoshi to you if you don't know the ukemi, which for that technique is really scary and pretty advanced. So, you have to focus on ukemi in order to progress as well. Most injuries that happen in Aikido, almost always happen because a nage is throwing or executing a technique on an uke who either doesn't know, or cannot properly execute the ukemi.

I practice BJJ as well as Aikido. Aikido is, and will always be, my primary art. Practice what you like. Don't worry about what others think. Their opinion is really not important or relevant at all.

BTW, I was just at a seminar this weekend with an 80 y/o Japanese Shihan who weighed maybe 120 pounds. He threw me so hard, it was ridiculous. He used me as uke as I am a bit bigger and he wanted to demonstrate how to unbalance a bigger, stronger person. He told me to grab hard, which I did......and then he looked at the class, and said...."Hehe, Stronger fall harder..."......BAM, I was down, over and over again, and the more resistance, the harder I fell.

The point behind that story was, that someone watching with, say an MMA background, might go...."that's ********"....yet, I can tell you unequivocably, that I was not just falling, and I was resisting pretty strongly. He was simply unbalancing me quicky, efficiently, and following w fast techniques that took me down.....

Just a quick note - the use of "aikidoka" is apparently different outside of Ueshiba's Aikido. Nobody in NGA would bat an eye at it being used to describe a brand new student. For us, it's just a reference to someone who studies the art.

 

[Tez3]

from the MMA community.

I wouldn't say the MMA community just, there's criticism from the TMA people as well, why do people always say MMA as if they were the only ones who criticise anything? Do the TMA never criticise anything, aren't they the main complainers about MMA?
For the record I am TMA and MMA, I've even done a bit of Aikido.

 

[Spinedoc]

Just a quick note - the use of "aikidoka" is apparently different outside of Ueshiba's Aikido. Nobody in NGA would bat an eye at it being used to describe a brand new student. For us, it's just a reference to someone who studies the art.

I always thought that too.....Honestly, I didn't even think twice about it. However, apparently, the use of the term doka in Japanese, did not imply what I thought it did?? Maybe the guy was just giving me grief? I dunno. Just what I was told.

 

[Steve]

Okay, I think I see where you and I are differing on this one, Steve. See, I don't think of the competitive points as where to develop most things (except better live readings). Drills and practice are where we develop the skills, and the competitive element is where we test them out. Given how scarce aiki opportunities are (as I define them) in competition with folks who understand grappling, it's not a particularly good place to develop that feel. In fact, it's more likely to foster folks taking the leverage route rather than the aiki route.

I think I need to take some time and refine how I explain my definition of aiki - it seems to confuse everyone but me when I use words to explain it (meaning they get a different definition from my words than the one I'm trying to give).

As for the variety of competition, I agree with you for the most part. I just have no interest in competitions, so have limited that variety to rolling/sparring/playing with folks from different arts on an informal basis, rather than entering competitions. Competitions add some elements that matter less in a short self-defense encounter (the stamina to stay with someone at my own level for several rounds, for instance). I don't know - maybe if I'd had these discussions 20 years ago, I'd have a different attitude. But I do know people who trained their skills without entering competitions, using other training methods, and developed skills that served them well in real encounters (again, looking mostly at LEO's and bouncers). The real differentiator has been testing their skills in various ways, training with good intensity, and being willing to look for flaws in their technique rather than just polishing endlessly without regard to effectiveness. Most of them had experience in more than one art, giving them a more informed filter for evaluating the techniques and applications in each.

Think about something like delivering feedback to a problem employee. We offer soft skills over and over, training management on this fundamental skill. But it really only takes a few minutes to share a feedback model so that the manager gets it. Some degree of role playing or scenario training is very helpful for two main reasons. First, it gives the manager a chance to receive some coaching on the spot. Second, it usually makes clear that talking about what you'd say is way easier than saying it.

But, all that goes away if the skill is never applied in context. The real skill development occurs when a manager is determined to apply the skill, and as they do, they improve.

EDIT: I want to add that following a period of application, additional coaching and feedback can be very effective.

I can't think of a single skill that is learned otherwise, with the sole exception of some "martial arts" or "self defense" skills.

 

[Spinedoc]

Think about something like delivering feedback to a problem employee. We offer soft skills over and over, training management on this fundamental skill. But it really only takes a few minutes to share a feedback model so that the manager gets it. Some degree of role playing or scenario training is very helpful for two main reasons. First, it gives the manager a chance to receive some coaching on the spot. Second, it usually makes clear that talking about what you'd say is way easier than saying it.

But, all that goes away if the skill is never applied in context. The real skill development occurs when a manager is determined to apply the skill, and as they do, they improve.

EDIT: I want to add that following a period of application, additional coaching and feedback can be very effective.

I can't think of a single skill that is learned otherwise, with the sole exception of some "martial arts" or "self defense" skills.

I think the point is though, that many Aikido dojo's DO some level of pressure testing, usually in the way of multiple attackers, or sometimes, just one attacker with multiple attacks. Heck, this weekend, after lunch on Saturday at the seminar, one of my Sensei's, a Sandan, and I were stretching out (2 hour lunch breaks are simply too long...get stiff), and all of a sudden he started attacking me.......Didn't tell me which attack, just attack, and I had to respond and throw, and then he would attack again. Did that for like 10 minutes which was a nice way to warm up for the afternoon. It may not be competition, but still, it's not just static practice either.

 

[Steve]

I think the point is though, that many Aikido dojo's DO some level of pressure testing, usually in the way of multiple attackers, or sometimes, just one attacker with multiple attacks. Heck, this weekend, after lunch on Saturday at the seminar, one of my Sensei's, a Sandan, and I were stretching out (2 hour lunch breaks are simply too long...get stiff), and all of a sudden he started attacking me.......Didn't tell me which attack, just attack, and I had to respond and throw, and then he would attack again. Did that for like 10 minutes which was a nice way to warm up for the afternoon. It may not be competition, but still, it's not just static practice either.

Helpful, to be sure, but not the same thing. As you say, it's not static practice, which is great. But, still going to be limiting if the skills are never fully applied.

 

[Psilent Knight]

I'll say the art does matter. I think it's the person and the art, not one or the other. If I get tapped out on the ground by someone who has trained a much shorter time in BJJ, that's probably the art (art with ground focus vs. art with standing focus).

Even in that scenario I STILL say that it is the person. As a fighter your goal is to fight TO WIN. Since it's your goal to win then you must put yourself through whatever training regimen that is necessary to ensure that. If you do that and you still get beat by another person by whatever means then that person is just a better fighter than you. With no offense or disrespect intended I have learned that I am not the only one who does not consider Capoeira as legitimate fighting art; at least not one on the same scale as Judo, BJJ or muay Thai. But if a Capoeira person manages to beat the snot out of a mma fighter I will not be so quick to say that Capoeira outperformed mma, I will say the person who had fought using Capoeira outperformed the person who used mma in the fight. It was the individual who had won or lost and not the art.

In discussions like this one of my favorite examples I like to bring up is UFC fighter Lyoto Machida. Before he started competing in mma Karate had a reputation for being all but useless in the cage. The along comes Lyoto defeating people left and right using primarily his Karate skills. And NOW Lyoto seems to be in somewhat of a slump. In the entire ebbs and flows of Lyoto's fighting career it was never so much the superiority or inferiority of Karate as fighting art it was the superiority (and now inferiority) of Lyoto Machida as a fighter compared to his past, present and possibly future opponent's. If Karate was an inferior or useless art then Lyoto would have never won so many fights. But if Karate was such a superior unbeatable martial art then Lyoto would have never lost the fights that he has. It's not the Karate it's Lyoto as an individual and how good or not so good of a fighter he is compared to other fighters.

Now, if that same person actually manages to get me to the ground (reliably and easily, let's not get caught up in those exceptions that can always happen), that's something wrong with either me as a practitioner or the art I'm trained in or the training methods used to train me.

Or it could be that guy IS JUST A BETTER FIGHTER THAN YOU! And by that I mean, martial art aside, he's stronger, more aggressive, faster, lacks fear and empathy, has had way more street fights than you can possibly imagine, may have done 10 years upstate and just has a better overall fight IQ than you. In such case it's definitely the person. I have seen this happen so many times. I really don't think martial artists who practice for self protection should disregard this.

As martial artists we train to protect ourselves against untrained people. I think this mindset is obscuring our vision a little bit. Just because a person has never stepped foot inside of a dojo does not mean that he is "untrained". Fighting for your life and surviving upstate for 10 or 15 years is possibly the most brutal, adrenaline filled training one can get. Same thing if a 33 year old athletically gifted man spent his entire life fighting on the streets. If he's still alive to talk about those experiences you can bet your last that he knows a thing or two about fighting. He may not know much if anything at all about TMAs that we train but he knows a thing or two about ACTUALLY FIGHTING. I don't want to make the mistake of assuming that just because I train and am very good at the martial art that I practice that automatically means that I know how to fight. I'm afraid it's not that simple and it's not the same thing.

If a person wants to get good at sparring and competing then he should spar and compete. If a person wants to be good at really fighting where the stakes are way higher than a sporting match then the only way to do that is to really fight. There are some people who do just that and have done just that. We never know if the person we're about to mix it up with is that guy or not.

Take Care My Friend and Have A Good One,
Osu!

 

[Psilent Knight]

That doesnt work though. So I wanted to compete in pride. I could do any system?

I'm sorry but I don't understand your question. Is it possible for you to rephrase it for me?

Take Care,
Osu!

 

[Steve]

Even in that scenario I STILL say that it is the person. As a fighter your goal is to fight TO WIN. Since it's your goal to win then you must put yourself through whatever training regimen that is necessary to ensure that. If you do that and you still get beat by another person by whatever means then that person is just a better fighter than you. With no offense or disrespect intended I have learned that I am not the only one who does not consider Capoeira as legitimate fighting art; at least not one on the same scale as Judo, BJJ or muay Thai. But if a Capoeira person manages to beat the snot out of a mma fighter I will not be so quick to say that Capoeira outperformed mma, I will say the person who had fought using Capoeira outperformed the person who used mma in the fight. It was the individual who had won or lost and not the art.

In discussions like this one of my favorite examples I like to bring up is UFC fighter Lyoto Machida. Before he started competing in mma Karate had a reputation for being all but useless in the cage. The along comes Lyoto defeating people left and right using primarily his Karate skills. And NOW Lyoto seems to be in somewhat of a slump. In the entire ebbs and flows of Lyoto's fighting career it was never so much the superiority or inferiority of Karate as fighting art it was the superiority (and now inferiority) of Lyoto Machida as a fighter compared to his past, present and possibly future opponent's. If Karate was an inferior or useless art then Lyoto would have never won so many fights. But if Karate was such a superior unbeatable martial art then Lyoto would have never lost the fights that he has. It's not the Karate it's Lyoto as an individual and how good or not so good of a fighter he is compared to other fighters.



Or it could be that guy IS JUST A BETTER FIGHTER THAN YOU! And by that I mean, martial art aside, he's stronger, more aggressive, faster, lacks fear and empathy, has had way more street fights than you can possibly imagine, may have done 10 years upstate and just has a better overall fight IQ than you. In such case it's definitely the person. I have seen this happen so many times. I really don't think martial artists who practice for self protection should disregard this.

As martial artists we train to protect ourselves against untrained people. I think this mindset is obscuring our vision a little bit. Just because a person has never stepped foot inside of a dojo does not mean that he is "untrained". Fighting for your life and surviving upstate for 10 or 15 years is possibly the most brutal, adrenaline filled training one can get. Same thing if a 33 year old athletically gifted man spent his entire life fighting on the streets. If he's still alive to talk about those experiences you can bet your last that he knows a thing or two about fighting. He may not know much if anything at all about TMAs that we train but he knows a thing or two about ACTUALLY FIGHTING. I don't want to make the mistake of assuming that just because I train and am very good at the martial art that I practice that automatically means that I know how to fight. I'm afraid it's not that simple and it's not the same thing.

If a person wants to get good at sparring and competing then he should spar and compete. If a person wants to be good at really fighting where the stakes are way higher than a sporting match then the only way to do that is to really fight. There are some people who do just that and have done just that. We never know if the person we're about to mix it up with is that guy or not.

Take Care My Friend and Have A Good One,
Osu!

Every individual you mention has something very critical in common. They all apply the skills in context. Even the guy who doesn't have any formal training will see his skill level improve by simply performing the skill.

Also, want to point out that Lyoto Machida is, in addition to being a high level karateka, a black belt in BJJ and trained in sumo.

 

[Ironbear24]

I wouldn't say the MMA community just, there's criticism from the TMA people as well, why do people always say MMA as if they were the only ones who criticise anything? Do the TMA never criticise anything, aren't they the main complainers about MMA?
For the record I am TMA and MMA, I've even done a bit of Aikido.

All the more reason why these terms are stupid and meaningless. As far as I am concerned if you train to fight or protect yourself then you're a martial artist regardless.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

(Please avoid Aikidoka as a term for Aikido practitioners, technically, in Japan, it only refers to a notable, or high ranking, distinguished Aikidoist, for most people it doesn't matter, but I used the term once with a visiting Shihan from Japan, and he wasn't amused, he took me aside to explain the difference after class)

First I've ever heard of this, but I don't practice Aikido or speak Japanese. Do you know if the same outlook would extend to the terms "karateka" or "judoka"? What would the preferred term for an Aikido practitioner be in Japan anyway? "Practitioner" is English and -"ist" would be an English based suffix, so I'm sure neither of those would be used by Japanese speakers.

The attacks in Aikido are all based on sword motions, or how you would move and cut with a sword....without the sword.

I've heard this before, but in 99% of the Aikido demonstrations I see on video, the striking attacks delivered by uke appear to me like they would represent very poor swordmanship body mechanics (as well as being delivered at the wrong range for a sword cut). Admittedly my own sword skills are rudimentary at best, but I see some pretty glaring issues if the attacks are supposed to represent sword cuts. (The defenses against wrist grabs do make more sense if we imagine the context is an attacker trying to prevent your from drawing your sword. I could buy that explanation.)

Have you noticed the same thing? If so, do you think it has something to do with the fact that the majority of Aikido practitioners don't also practice a sword art? I know some people do cross-train with Aikido and a sword art, so I would expect those individuals might teach uke to present a better simulation of a sword based attack.