Aikido in action

[Taiji Rebel]

The Aikido instructor in the following video gives us different ideas to contemplate.

Consider his viewpoints in relation to these quotes by the old masters of aikido, swordsmanship and strategy.

"In a real battle, atemi is seventy percent, technique is thirty percent." - Ueshiba

“One mark of a great soldier is that he fights on his own terms or fights not at all.” - Sun Tzu

“You win battles by knowing the enemy's timing, and using a timing which the enemy does not expect.” - Musashi

 

[O'Malley]

“One mark of a great soldier is that he fights on his own terms or fights not at all.” - Sun Tzu

I really like that quote.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I like that, and that is what I like about Xingyiquan, it closes in, reduces distance, just attacks. And if I think about it, so do may taijiquan applications

Interesting about hand positions, reminds me of Japanese Jujitsu I took years ago, the guard was lower

Now prepare yourself for an onslaught of folks ripping it all apart

 

[Dirty Dog]

“One mark of a great soldier is that he fights on his own terms or fights not at all.” - Sun Tzu

Yeah. You go try that. See how fast you get court martialed...

 

[Taiji Rebel]

The Aikido guy discussed some great concepts in the video above.

Comparing Musashi with D'Artagnan was interesting and informative. One character abides by the rules of a contest, the other does whatever is necessary to win. His thoughts reminded me of the recent wars in the Middle-East and the distant skirmishes of the Vietnam conflict.

In each of those wars, small guerrilla forces used simple tactics to destroy the morale, and superior firepower of the larger armies. They won because they used the mindset and tactics of Sun Tzu's great solider, whereas the conventional forces conformed to the rules and were severely beaten as a consequence.

Aikido is one of those styles which thoroughly confuses lots of martial artists. There seems to be a fixed idea of what it is and what it can do. Unfortunately, this kind of thinking is a failure because Aikido is a lot more fluid and adaptable than most martial artists realize.

The techniques of Aikido change constantly; every encounter is unique, and the appropriate response should emerge naturally. Today's techniques will be different tomorrow. Do not get caught up with the form and appearance of a challenge. Aikido has no form - it is the study of the spirit ~ Morihei Ueshiba

Leo Tamaki's comments on ritual fights as Alpha-male contests are also 100% accurate. This definition is one which will help you to see why competition-fighting fails to prepare anyone for the reality of everyday self-defense situations.

This point has been raised before, but it seems a number of martial artists are not really clear on the difference between dojo sparring, competitive matches and violent confrontations in daily life - prearranged fights are basically simple headbutting contests between two young bucks looking to discover the alpha male.

There is so much to unpack in this short Aikido video, and I have only just skimmed the surface. It will be fun to hear everyone else's thoughts on the topic. I am looking forward to reading your responses

 

[drop bear]

Leo Tamaki's comments on ritual fights as Alpha-male contests are also 100% accurate. This definition is one which will help you to see why competition-fighting fails to prepare anyone for the reality of everyday self-defense situations.

This point has been raised before, but it seems a number of martial artists are not really clear on the difference between dojo sparring, competitive matches and violent confrontations in daily life - prearranged

The guy who could barely handle Jesse Encamp throwing lack luster attacks is the model for defending a serious assault?

Why does this argument always get used when people fail as soon as the techniques are resisted?

Is there footage or evidence to show this method works in a super serious non sporting or non alpha male contest attack.

Because there is for competition fighters.

 

[drop bear]

The Aikido guy discussed some great concepts in the video above.

Comparing Musashi with D'Artagnan was interesting and informative. One character abides by the rules of a contest, the other does whatever is necessary to win. His thoughts reminded me of the recent wars in the Middle-East and the distant skirmishes of the Vietnam conflict.

In each of those wars, small guerrilla forces used simple tactics to destroy the morale, and superior firepower of the larger armies. They won because they used the mindset and tactics of Sun Tzu's great solider, whereas the conventional forces conformed to the rules and were severely beaten as a consequence.

The rules of a contest are doing what is necessary to win. That is how a contest works.

Rules of engagement are kind of the same. Yes we could just drop a nuke on Afghanistan and solve that battle. But we would create bigger battles elsewhere.

And a great philosopher said.

You gotta know when to hold em.
Know when to fold em.
Know when to walk away.
Know when to run.

 

[Taiji Rebel]

Machismo rules your world Mr. Bear.

Leo Tamaki is not Aikido, nor is Jesse Enkamp Karate. Styles and forms are nothing but illusions. Just neat labels for new consumers.

Remember, the real purpose of the YT video is to create more subscribers and followers. Followers and fans bring big money for the content creators.

But in this case the video contains some great concepts - except they are difficult for you to understand.

Why?

Because, yet again, your attention is fixated on the playfighting

 

[drop bear]

It is strange how people have these reasonable starts but then follow that to some strange conclusions.

Asymmetric fighting is kind of a weird one for that.

Where you should fight with better tools on better ground than the other guy. Which makes sense. Fight with an advantage if you can.

But then people get really strange. Like in the video, he is like. If you sports fight me. I will eye gouge, nut shot, bite, whatever. And therefore it will become an asymmetric fight.

But it is really not the case.

This for example is an asymmetric fight.

Because he can't see it. He can't defend it. And he can't endure the effects of it.

 

[O'Malley]

The guy who could barely handle Jesse Encamp throwing lack luster attacks is the model for defending a serious assault?

As I'm sure you'll realise, they were not going live. Jesse asked "show me what you'd do against such and such" and Leo went along. He never initiated, he just waited for the attacks to come and improvised some responses. It's not fair to say that he can "barely handle Jesse's lackluster attacks" as that was never put to the test.

Is there footage or evidence to show this method works in a super serious non sporting or non alpha male contest attack.

Because there is for competition fighters.

Fair point. That being said, and having heard some interviews of Leo, I don't think he claims that his method is the most practical for street fighting. His aikido is a way of physical and mental development through the study of life-or-death combat, even in what would realistically be unwinnable situations (having inferior strength, speed, weaponry and numbers).

But then people get really strange. Like in the video, he is like. If you sports fight me. I will eye gouge, nut shot, bite, whatever. And therefore it will become an asymmetric fight.

That's not what he said. He said that if you want to up the intensity, you need to remove some techniques and targets from the equation otherwise it will be dangerous. Which is something everybody will agree upon. He also said that it is why when they remove the rules they have to reduce the intensity. It makes sense.

What he also said was that "ritual combat" (e.g. combat sports) takes place in a different context than life-or-death combat and that this can be illustrated by the fact that protecting your jaw is vital in combat sports but is ineffective against knives.

This for example is an asymmetric fight.

Because he can't see it. He can't defend it. And he can't endure the effects of it.

In that particular case, the result has less to do with the guy's ability to defend punches and more to do with the fact that the bouncer took him by surprise.

 

[drop bear]

Fair point. That being said, and having heard some interviews of Leo, I don't think he claims that his method is the most practical for street fighting. His aikido is a way of physical and mental development through the study of life-or-death combat, even in what would realistically be unwinnable situations (having inferior strength, speed, weaponry and numbers).

Wasn't he basically claiming that in that video?

Everything was street this and real fight that

Even if that was an academic study I think it is pretty poor. I mean HEMA would be what you described.

 

[drop bear]

In that particular case, the result has less to do with the guy's ability to defend punches and more to do with the fact that the bouncer took him by surprise.

And he was bigger and he could fight and he also probably had the numbers.

And that is how asymmetric fights work. Not my eye poke vs your sport punch.

Which is a weird thing people fall for all the time.

 

[drop bear]

As I'm sure you'll realise, they were not going live. Jesse asked "show me what you'd do against such and such" and Leo went along. He never initiated, he just waited for the attacks to come and improvised some responses. It's not fair to say that he can "barely handle Jesse's lackluster attacks" as that was never put to the test.

That's fine. But then it is not an example of the point I responded to.

Which is understanding what would prepare someone for a real fight.

 

[Cynik75]

... It's not fair to say that he can "barely handle Jesse's lackluster attacks" as that was never put to the test.

The best way for him to prove his concepts are righ is to put them to the test.
As Rokas did.
Other way he is no more than other aikido master who talks, talks, talks and nothing more.

....What he also said was that "ritual combat" (e.g. combat sports) takes place in a different context than life-or-death combat and that this can be illustrated by the fact that protecting your jaw is vital in combat sports but is ineffective against knives.

I am pretty sure the possibility of being attacked with the fists on the streets is much much higher than possibility of being attacked with the knife. Better for him to learn how to protect the jaw.
BTW I do not see the difference between breaking somebodys nose in "ritual combat" and breaking somebodys nose in "real fight".
Technique and damage is the same,

 

[Taiji Rebel]

Now prepare yourself for an onslaught of folks ripping it all apart

Are you psychic?

Or is something which happens all the time on this forum?

 

[Taiji Rebel]

The best way for him to prove his concepts are righ is to put them to the test.

Why does anyone have to prove anything?

Did he ever make the claim his concepts are right?

These are just ideas to consider, or not - the choice is yours!

All anyone need do is prove what works for them.

 

[Taiji Rebel]

And he was bigger and he could fight and he also probably had the numbers.

And that is how asymmetric fights work. Not my eye poke vs your sport punch.

Which is a weird thing people fall for all the time.

It is difficult to follow your points here Mr. Bear - are you equating the Julius Francis KO of that little guy with a real self-defense situation?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

His thoughts reminded me of the recent wars in the Middle-East and the distant skirmishes of the Vietnam conflict.

In each of those wars, small guerrilla forces used simple tactics to destroy the morale, and superior firepower of the larger armies. They won because they used the mindset and tactics of Sun Tzu's great solider, whereas the conventional forces conformed to the rules and were severely beaten as a consequence.

I take it you did not serve in that 'distant skirmish'.

 

[Taiji Rebel]

I take it you did not serve in that 'distant skirmish'.

Fortunately not, but I know a fair number who did.

Listening to first-hand accounts of how clever and cunning the Vietnamese people were was truly inspiring. Their ingenuity in applying guerrilla-tactics was honed during the time of the French occupation - the American, and Australian forces were never going to win against such a tenacious people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Once again we saw this when Russia tried to invade Afghanistan in the 1970s - the mujahedeen took them apart with ancient rifles and similar guerrilla tactics, and then we all made the same mistake again by thinking we could beat them using superior firepower 😢

It was they who had all the real-world combat experience, not us!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Fortunately not, but I know a fair number who did.

Listening to first-hand accounts of how clever and cunning the Vietnamese people were was truly inspiring. Their ingenuity in applying guerrilla-tactics was honed during the time of the French occupation - the American, and Australian forces were never going to win against such a tenacious people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Once again we saw this when Russia tried to invade Afghanistan in the 1970s - the mujahedeen took them apart with ancient rifles and similar guerrilla tactics. And then we all made the same mistake of going over there, once again thinking we could beat them 😢

It was they who had all the real-world combat experience, not us.

Thanks for that. I think we're done here. Bye.