Aikido hate

[Gerry Seymour]

And so you go on youtube and replicate a bad fight and then try to develop counters specific to that.

Like some sort of Michael page style thing.

So, suddenly getting some input from video evidence, and using that to inform your training, is a bad thing? Kind of contrary to your argument against anecdotal evidence, isn't it?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I mean if Aikido even leaned towards high percentage low risk. It would be taking some pretty big steps forward.

I mean, if you understood what you were talking about when you discuss other arts, that would be a big step forward. You have assumed - and continue to assume - things about what I (and others) do, without evidence. Then you try to support your view by showing videos that sometimes have no relevance to the argument at hand, sometimes support one side of the argument while ignoring the fact that they don't actually refute anything the other side is saying, and sometimes - just sometimes - actually bring relevant points to the argument.

Try more of the latter, and a lot less strawman and unsupported assumptions.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The point I take from that video is... maintain the distance. To be inside (mai ai)is to be blasted.

Also... if you're that close to a potential threat, get your hands up and make the guy go through them.

Crap... now I sound like Geoff.

Yep. The kind of stuff most of us would consider basics.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't know about him, but to me, those were skilled punches, thrown by people who figured out how to successfully sucker punch someone, i.e. trained and skilled. Training doesn't have to happen in a gym, or a dojo... training can happen anywhere someone learns something and works on it.

And being sucker punches (and fairly skilled ones), they fall into a group that's pretty hard to deal with in any style. (For clarity, when I say "sucker punch", by definition it's not anticipated by the punchee, and there aren't a lot of clear visual cues beforehand.)

 

[drop bear]

I mean, if you understood what you were talking about when you discuss other arts, that would be a big step forward. You have assumed - and continue to assume - things about what I (and others) do, without evidence. Then you try to support your view by showing videos that sometimes have no relevance to the argument at hand, sometimes support one side of the argument while ignoring the fact that they don't actually refute anything the other side is saying, and sometimes - just sometimes - actually bring relevant points to the argument.

Try more of the latter, and a lot less strawman and unsupported assumptions.

You dont understand how self defence actually works. You are trying to explain how you want self defence to work. Because that gells with your training methods.

So you create a circumstance in training that people throw a technique that makes your defence work. (Your version of a sloppy street punch) This does not reflect the reality of anything. Neither street or sport. Just your idealised version of martial arts.

When we see sparring. We see a very predictable respons of deer in the headlights as the reality does not meet the expectation.

You suggested that to work effectively a punch needs to be thrown with intent. The first video was a punch thrown with intent.

You decided that that wasn't the right punch as both parties were trained. And that most agressors wont be trained.

So I showed punches thrown with intent by people who were not trained. And the definition expanded to people who were not formally trained but either skilled or experienced. And again does not fit in to your right sort of punch.

And so you again found some punches that met your ideal version of a punch you wanted. And they were not very effective punches.

Every time you limit what punch you can use. You take away from the argument that you are training for a common punch.

But you dont want a common punch you want an idealic punch that suits your method of defence.

Rather than training a method of defence to suit an actual punch you might face.

And you don't realise any of this which is why you think my comments are strawmen or irrelevant or mean or I am just too damn blond. Or whatever.

You are desperate to hold on to an ideal.

 

[drop bear]

So, suddenly getting some input from video evidence, and using that to inform your training, is a bad thing? Kind of contrary to your argument against anecdotal evidence, isn't it?

Can I become an aikido intructor from watching videos? I would first need a grounding in Aikido.

 

[drop bear]

If you're looking at the foo-foo stuff while dancing around in hakama, the pretty ukemi being taken while going with and not fighting techniques while "thinking" all that stuff works just the same as on the street.... I'm with that.

But, that's not what I do. I think I'm doing aikido when I'm doing the below, though I may not be using aikido techniques, whatever those are. armbar is armbar, we had that discussion in May.

Crisp attacks get blocked when it's required, and opponents get struck, hard, when openings appear, and they always do -- that's a two-way street.

Guy swings big right slip right, catch it on guard twist back right and block right while firing counterpunch, or your striking technique de jour, if opening is there to get an arm drag to take the back do that.... fighting up the middle is no fun.

Or, big right hand comes in and you duck, dodge, slip whatever and now you are immediately behind them. Surely this has happened to you. People throw WAY more punches than they hit with, it's worse than the baseball pitcher vs. hitter comparison, typically. And for this one, the only difference between skilled and unskilled is that skilled guys have a higher batting average and throw the bat (i.e. lose their balance, overextend, overcommit, etc) less often.

Some people are desperate to believe their system will work to the point that they start to bend the rules of what an attacker will do.

Capoeira can be a good example because you can bust a guy in a roda. But pert of that is because he is doing capoeira at you. The openings can be created by the dynamics of the system itself.

Sport jujitsu may be an even better example.

And yes I know guys who have used capo and some really inadvisable BJJ in the street.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You dont understand how self defence actually works. You are trying to explain how you want self defence to work. Because that gells with your training methods.

So you create a circumstance in training that people throw a technique that makes your defence work. (Your version of a sloppy street punch) This does not reflect the reality of anything. Neither street or sport. Just your idealised version of martial arts.

Except it's not "my version" of anything. It's something we can see in video evidence that actually occurs.

When we see sparring. We see a very predictable respons of dear in the headlights as the reality does not meet the expectation.

Except when people have also sparred. Which we do. Now, I might still be surprised by someone's skill, or run into an approach I've not trained for (something I love to run into - new stuff to work on), but that can happen to any of us, regardless of style.

You suggested that to work effectively a punch needs to be thrown with intent. The first video was a punch thrown with intent.

This might be where you've gotten off the rails in understanding my point. Pretty much all punches are thrown with intent, unless they are feints. That's going to be as true for a skilled, controlled, and contained punch as it is for an over-committed one. The key point is the amount and method of weight commitment. Over-committed punches have a different dynamic, which can be taken advantage of. The same is true of under-committed punches (which we could arguably say lack "intent", I suppose).

You decided that that wasn't the right punch as both parties were trained. And that most agressors wont be trained.

Not quite true. You keep ignoring that I've not said those things (skilled punches) don't exist. I've clearly said they do, and that they require a different approach than over-committed ones. So, that set of punches wasn't addressing what you were saying I was wrong about. If you say to me that there are a lot of white cars on the road, me pointing out a dozen red cars doesn't have any bearing on your statement.

So I showed punches thrown with intent by people who were not trained. And the definition expanded to people who were not formally trained but either skilled or experienced. And again does not fit in to your right sort of punch.

That's a fair point. I tend to lump anyone with skill into the "trained" category. "Skilled" would be a better word. That part of the disagreement is on me.

And so you again found some punches that met your ideal version of a punch you wanted. And they were not very effective punches.

Not "punch you wanted" - "punch that exists". Different thing. I'm not hoping for those (okay, I am - we all are - they're easier to deal with). They just happen to be the kind I mentioned earlier that happen fairly commonly. Again, it was literally the first video I clicked on after searching "bully" on Youtube. I didn't have to cherry-pick to find it.

Every time you limit what punch you can use. You take away from the argument that you are training for a common punch.

Except, again, I didn't have to search hard to find several examples. It's actually pretty common to find in videos. If you search for KO's, you'll find more skilled punches (because they're more likely to result in KO). If you look at trained fighters, I hope to hell you'll see more skilled punches. But it's pretty easy to find evidence of unskilled punches. It's also pretty easy to find evidence of over-committed punches where someone's reaching to cover distance in anger (can't tell their skill level as clearly then).

But you dont want a common punch you want an idealic punch that suits your method of defence.

Except that there's a lot of evidence of those punches being reasonably common. You've presented a false trail here, DB, and you should be aware of that. You're trying to make it look like I'm cherry-picking because I said your two sets of videos weren't evidence contrary to my point. Those weren't randomly selected videos - you chose them, claiming them to be counter evidence. It's not me cherry-picking the evidence - you chose that evidence to demonstrate that good punches happen - a point I made before you started down this rabbit hole.

Rather than training a method of defence to suit an actual punch you might face.

Are you now claiming the video I posted doesn't represent an actual punch I might face? Or that I have ever said over-committed punches are the only punches that happen, or that they are all I train for? If so, you're lost deep in the woods.

And you don't realise any of this which is why you think my comments are strawmen or irrelevant or mean or I am just too damn blond. Or whatever.

You are desperate to hold on to an ideal.

Except that I've pointed out several times where you are, in fact, arguing against something I've not said - the very definition of "strawman argument".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Some people are desperate to believe their system will work to the point that they start to bend the rules of what an attacker will do.

Capoeira can be a good example because you can bust a guy in a roda. But pert of that is because he is doing capoeira at you. The openings can be created by the dynamics of the system itself.

Sport jujitsu may be an even better example.

And yes I know guys who have used capo and some really inadvisable BJJ in the street.

And some people are so desperate to win an argument that they make false claims about what others are arguing. Just sayin'.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Can I become an aikido intructor from watching videos? I would first need a grounding in Aikido.

That seems a complete non sequitur, DB.

 

[drop bear]

Except when people have also sparred. Which we do. Now, I might still be surprised by someone's skill, or run into an approach I've not trained for (something I love to run into - new

Yeah and this is the kicker. So we can see full contact capoeira sparring and suggest it only works like it does because both people are doing capoeira.

We can see sports jujitsu sparring and suggest that only works because both people are doing sports jujitsu.

We pretty much cant see Aikido sparring because nobody ever films it. So we cant get a guage on how realistic or relevant it is.

I cant take the sparring argument if I cant see it.

 

[drop bear]

That seems a complete non sequitur, DB.

Can you become a practical expert in defending attacks from watching videos?

I can fight anyone from the sidelines.

 

[drop bear]

And some people are so desperate to win an argument that they make false claims about what others are arguing. Just sayin'.

pot meet kettle.

 

[drop bear]

Are you now claiming the video I posted doesn't represent an actual punch I might face? Or that I have ever said over-committed punches are the only punches that happen, or that they are all I train for? If so, you're lost deep in the woods.

Ok. Show me an example of how you train against a realistic punch?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah and this is the kicker. So we can see full contact capoeira sparring and suggest it only works like it does because both people are doing capoeira.

We can see sports jujitsu sparring and suggest that only works because both people are doing sports jujitsu.

We pretty much cant see Aikido sparring because nobody ever films it. So we cant get a guage on how realistic or relevant it is.

I cant take the sparring argument if I cant see it.

I only mentioned it because you brought it up. The lack of video doesn't help the discussion. Most of the videos I can find of Aikido are either instructional or demonstrations. Very little live work against an opponent seems to show up in videos. In some cases, that's indicative of an issue in the art, but I do know there are Aikido schools that do live work against each other. I wish more of that made it on - would like to see what that looks like in more schools.

In many Aikido schools, there's no sparring (no striking-style sparring - just randori, which I'll talk about in a minute). Those folks will probably have that deer-in-headlights response. Put me in with a skilled striker, and you'll see someone who likes to disrupt hands. If my opponent is good at stopping that (and a skilled striker), I'm probably in trouble, because I don't spar as much as I should with people who can handle that.

Randori - in most Aikido schools - ends up being a lot like the Capoeira sparring. The "attacks" are creating opening that make the Aikido practice possible without alteration. My version of "randori" is just grappling (no strikes, except when we can't contain ourselves because an opening is too good). It looks more like Judo - more inside work, more pulling and pushing - because we're working against people who know how to counter what we're doing, and aren't worried about being punched (so, basically the same setup as Judo randori).

I've only rarely combined those two - grappling and punching - fully in sparring. Mostly, it's a safety issue. I've never had mats more than about 12' wide, and that's not enough space for that activity. For me, personally, when I combine them, I tend to use strikes and pressure to build openings (get inside on strikers, get grapplers to commit weight forward/backward).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ok. Show me an example of how you train against a realistic punch?

I have literally zero videos of any of my training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

pot meet kettle.

And what argument of yours have I presented incorrectly? If I'm misunderstanding your point, perhaps that's part of the issue.

 

[drop bear]

I only mentioned it because you brought it up. The lack of video doesn't help the discussion. Most of the videos I can find of Aikido are either instructional or demonstrations. Very little live work against an opponent seems to show up in videos. In some cases, that's indicative of an issue in the art, but I do know there are Aikido schools that do live work against each other. I wish more of that made it on - would like to see what that looks like in more schools.

In many Aikido schools, there's no sparring (no striking-style sparring - just randori, which I'll talk about in a minute). Those folks will probably have that deer-in-headlights response. Put me in with a skilled striker, and you'll see someone who likes to disrupt hands. If my opponent is good at stopping that (and a skilled striker), I'm probably in trouble, because I don't spar as much as I should with people who can handle that.

Randori - in most Aikido schools - ends up being a lot like the Capoeira sparring. The "attacks" are creating opening that make the Aikido practice possible without alteration. My version of "randori" is just grappling (no strikes, except when we can't contain ourselves because an opening is too good). It looks more like Judo - more inside work, more pulling and pushing - because we're working against people who know how to counter what we're doing, and aren't worried about being punched (so, basically the same setup as Judo randori).

I've only rarely combined those two - grappling and punching - fully in sparring. Mostly, it's a safety issue. I've never had mats more than about 12' wide, and that's not enough space for that activity. For me, personally, when I combine them, I tend to use strikes and pressure to build openings (get inside on strikers, get grapplers to commit weight forward/backward).

You need a set of kudo hats.

 

[drop bear]

And what argument of yours have I presented incorrectly? If I'm misunderstanding your point, perhaps that's part of the issue.

I have made my point ten different ways.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I have made my point ten different ways.

And that doesn't answer the question. What part of your argument have I misrepresented?