Aikido.. The reality?

[JowGaWolf]

Yup, although there is more to it. For example, sometimes atemi itself is the way you deal with your opponent, like the sumo video you posted. Or like Shioda's back atemi (again with his full body behind it):

Yeah. My wife tells me I'm always typing books. So I try to follow Kung Fu Wang's example and try to short hand it.
But you are right there is more to it than that. I'm still trying to figure out how to short hand Jab (time in between strike) Jab. So far I've tried Jab..Jab and Jab >> Jab I'll probably have to just break out my photo editor and paste it like that.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I agree. If you set up someone and bait them right into your counter... you are not reacting, you are really initiating the action.

So.... taking that into consideration when we define who is the initiator, the pro-active fighter will be successful even more of the time. Yet so many TMA (especially those that don't have some form of legit pressure testing) espouse a reactive strategy.

I have to agree with you on this. Much of TMA practice involves one guy stepping in with a punch or kick and the other guy stepping back (hopefully sometimes to the side and even forwards) blocking, then countering. This basic, staccato, 1-2-3 kind of practice is great for beginners, and also works well for point sparring for intermediates. Now, if this is also standard for the advanced students, the style or the instructor need to stretch their boundries and rediscover some concepts that may have been lost to them.

Countering is a great skill and some successfully build their strategy around it. But all things work better when a strong and effective offense is thrown into the mix. Like in football, the run and short pass are more successful if the occasional long pass is thrown.

At the higher levels, the terms offense and defense should start to blur. To address your statement, geezer, let me ask a question. Is setting the opponent up for a counter proactive, or reactive? It's proactive in the sense you are leading the action, manipulating the opponent to execute some move (whether strike, kick or position change,) and reactive in that you are working off that move (even though you "caused" it.)

The truth of the matter, IMO, is that at the advanced level terms like offense and defense, or proactive and reactive, are irrelevant. Like yin and yang they are intimately intertwined. It all comes together in defeating the opponent.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Second video I would discard. That guy has basically created his own very different system, although he calls it aikido and tries to use it to interpret classical aikido forms. His terminology is all over the place, his historical arguments are often false and he routinely contradicts most aikido authorities. Not hating on him but I'd rather have him state explicitly that this is his own invention. Also, for context, he learnt from the same teacher as the "aikido VS MMA, then gave up aikido" guy.

Thanks for the additional info. This stuff is all over the place. I always dislike seeing people "give up" on a system that they train. 9 out of 10 give up without even having trained for function in the first place.

Here's what I see with the "Aikdo Guy that went to MMA" He trains Aikdo for more than 15 years to spar but only comes to the realization that "Aikido doesn't work" in the "15th year" when he first decides to spar? That's the deciding factor to quit. 15 years of not sparring against other styles and he thinks it's just "going to work out"? Then he quits? Sometimes people need to just step back and measure their training on a time line. Compare the amount of sparring against other people vs the amount of time drill training and everything will make sense and it should be clear what areas of training were lacking. They point fingers at their art instead of their training.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Yup, although there is more to it. For example, sometimes atemi itself is the way you deal with your opponent, like the sumo video you posted. Or like Shioda's back atemi (again with his full body behind it):

I watched that video where the guy attacks from the behind. At first I was like what the heck was he doing. Then I saw what looked like elbow strikes an it reminded me of how Kung Fu makes the person pull their elbows back. I was taught to chamber my punches like I'm trying to strike someone from behind but I never put much thought into it. I heard what the teacher said but my mind was like "yeah, yeah , yeah. pull elbows back strike from behind. Got it." lol Then I would be half-assed about it. But after I've seen that video. Now I SEE why. I understood 1 elbow but not 2 at the same time.

 

[drop bear]

1. They are still sparring videos against a resisting opponent who is clearly not punching softly.
2. They are still concepts and techniques in application against a sparring partner.
3. By your logic the guy @ 1:02 mark doesn't impress you as well. Because he's "not sparring against a decent puncher."
If I'm sub par then he is subpar by your definition of "not full speed, not against opponent's, I would consider decent punchers."

If you cannot see the skill set beyond "not punching hard" or "punching against " decent puncher. Then you will not be able to understand the comments that I've made. The concepts are sound and true.
1. Deal with the punch arm before the punch gets to the 50% mark
2. Deal with the punch arm as it's returning.

If I touch your punching arm before your punch reaches the 50% mark then you will not be able to land that punch on me.
If I touch your punching arm after your punch reaches the 50% mark then you will have a good chance of landing that punch.

It's not magic and you don't have to be a 1professional fighter to do these things.

There are about 5 0r 6 guys I can literally do anything to.

They are not the guys I base my successful techniques on.

Thanks for the additional info. This stuff is all over the place. I always dislike seeing people "give up" on a system that they train. 9 out of 10 give up without even having trained for function in the first place.

Here's what I see with the "Aikdo Guy that went to MMA" He trains Aikdo for more than 15 years to spar but only comes to the realization that "Aikido doesn't work" in the "15th year" when he first decides to spar? That's the deciding factor to quit. 15 years of not sparring against other styles and he thinks it's just "going to work out"? Then he quits? Sometimes people need to just step back and measure their training on a time line. Compare the amount of sparring against other people vs the amount of time drill training and everything will make sense and it should be clear what areas of training were lacking. They point fingers at their art instead of their training.

Yeah. But he got led down the park a bit as well. There was always some excuse or reason his stuff wouldn't work. Or he just has to wait for the real mysterys to reveal themselves.

When the whole system is working the con
Pointing fingers at the art is pretty accurate.

He had to leave the system to understand it.

 

[JowGaWolf]

There are about 5 0r 6 guys I can literally do anything to.

They are not the guys I base my successful techniques on.




Yeah. But he got led down the park a bit as well. There was always some excuse or reason his stuff wouldn't work. Or he just has to wait for the real mysterys to reveal themselves.

When the whole system is working the con
Pointing fingers at the art is pretty accurate.

He had to leave the system to understand it.

Great points all around.
It seems some people need to really step away.. Far away before they can see where the basic improvements need to be made. It's only when they start doing a lot basic conditioning and footwork drills that they understand just how much they were leaving out of their previous training. It's probably a good thing to do in general. Like even for me. Even though I didn't leave Jow Ga. I did step out and did a very tiny bit of Sanda Training. The end result was the realization that I really needed to up my Jow Ga training. I not only saw how much my training was lacking but felt it. So I took that lesson back and started Training Jow Ga with the same intensity that beat me up in the Sanda Training.

Before Sanda I thought I was training hard enough. After Sanda nothing less than "warrior training" was acceptable. If I wasn't training like I was going into battle, then I know I wasn't training hard enough. Stepping out of the box helped me to get my training straight.

 

[Martial D]

Great points all around.
It seems some people need to really step away.. Far away before they can see where the basic improvements need to be made. It's only when they start doing a lot basic conditioning and footwork drills that they understand just how much they were leaving out of their previous training. It's probably a good thing to do in general. Like even for me. Even though I didn't leave Jow Ga. I did step out and did a very tiny bit of Sanda Training. The end result was the realization that I really needed to up my Jow Ga training. I not only saw how much my training was lacking but felt it. So I took that lesson back and started Training Jow Ga with the same intensity that beat me up in the Sanda Training.

Before Sanda I thought I was training hard enough. After Sanda nothing less than "warrior training" was acceptable. If I wasn't training like I was going into battle, then I know I wasn't training hard enough. Stepping out of the box helped me to get my training straight.

Kinda reminds me of the late 90s the first time I started training with thai boxers. What a learning experience after 8 years of WC.
My circumstances were different though, as I had just moved cities and there was no wc at all where I moved to, so I just stayed on there. But I probably would have anyway, the difference in both training and effectiveness was night and day.

I got beat up a LOT.

 

[drop bear]

Not even close, though I love the video.

I've found this demonstration that shows the most basic aspect of aiki: connected body.



The guy above is from I Liq Chuan but they use a similar concept. The video above helps conceptualise what is happening in the aikido video below:

So. Magic?

The thing is that an Aikidoka could wrestle and basically do that and present a functionality to aikido that would be easily recognised.

But as soon as aikido step off the stage we get nothing.

And there are black belt aikido guys out in the real world doing this. But they are running in to brick walls when their partners are no longer part of their system.

So this is a mate of mine who is a very good wrestler. The other guy is Adrian Pang who is a legitimate MMA guy. And you can see a few other minor names. I think Ben ten and Jessie Jessie. And some others.

And the point of this is that at the time these were some really serious guys.

And the wrestler is basically toying with them. And this is basically because he can make the adjustments to their attacks better than they can attack.

And he can go anywhere and show this system of using this method to control another person. But there is no internal power going on here. He just moves in a way that removes your ability to utilise your force against him.

 

[Martial D]

So. Magic?

The thing is that an Aikidoka could wrestle and basically do that and present a functionality to aikido that would be easily recognised.

But as soon as aikido step off the stage we get nothing.

And there are black belt aikido guys out in the real world doing this. But they are running in to brick walls when their partners are no longer part of their system.

So this is a mate of mine who is a very good wrestler. The other guy is Adrian Pang who is a legitimate MMA guy. And you can see a few other minor names. I think Ben ten and Jessie Jessie. And some others.

And the point of this is that at the time these were some really serious guys.

And the wrestler is basically toying with them. And this is basically because he can make the adjustments to their attacks better than they can attack.

And he can go anywhere and show this system of using this method to control another person. But there is no internal power going on here. He just moves in a way that removes your ability to utilise your force against him.

Wrestling at such a high level basically is magic.

I had a buddy when I was younger that was provincial champ in his weight, smaller guy, probably 30 pounds lighter than me at the time.

One night I arrived at a party and saw him sitting in a chair. I creep up behind him to grab his shoulders. Just playing around.

Poof. Magic. I'm on my back and he is looking down at me.

Near 30 years later I still don't know what happened.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I haven't seen technique recommendation so I'm going to start posting something until I find the thing that I should be looking at.

Is this what I should be looking for with Aikido.? If not just tell me to find another video

 

[Steve]

I don't expect you to believe it. But claiming you don't believe it because no evidence, then choosing to believe the opposite without evidence is just plain dishonest. You're lying about your reason for choosing that belief. You choose it because you're triggered buy the word "Aikido", and really, really, reeally want it to be bad in all the ways you want it to be.

speaking for myself, nothing would please me more than to see evidence that the two martial arts styles I loved most as a kid, ninjutsu and aikido, actually work as taught. I have a soft spot for WC, too, as I trained in it for a couple years in high school in the 80s. If you could support some of your statements, I'd love it.

 

[Steve]

I can only think that way if I don't think the technique is valid. The fact that I'm able to do similar kung fu technique in sparring makes me think it's valid. If you are correct that would mean that
1. There is no principal, because the principal is based on something that doesn't occur. Principal would have to reference something that is real if it doesn't then the principle is flawed and the defense application of it is flawed.

2. If all of Aikido works like #1 then the system is flawed and it doesn't work.

3. If the system is flawed then there no way I would think I could land that that strike. Being that I've landed a closed fist version of that technique before.

4. If #1 and #2 aren't real then #3 isn't real even though I've used similar techniques in sparring.

5. If #4 is true then I'm either a liar or my video is a liar.

So that's where I am. lol.

It's possible that some of the principles are valid and some are not, but we cannot differentiate between them because the goal of training is choreography and not combat. I don't think we can get beyond 1 because the few folks in this thread who train in aikido are unwilling to share evidence that some or all of the principles are sound.

 

[drop bear]

It's possible that some of the principles are valid and some are not, but we cannot differentiate between them because the goal of training is choreography and not combat. I don't think we can get beyond 1 because the few folks in this thread who train in aikido are unwilling to share evidence that some or all of the principles are sound.

You don't tell people how a magic trick is done.

Unless you are Penn and teller.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

speaking for myself, nothing would please me more than to see evidence that the two martial arts styles I loved most as a kid, ninjutsu and aikido, actually work as taught. I have a soft spot for WC, too, as I trained in it for a couple years in high school in the 80s. If you could support some of your statements, I'd love it.

The statements in question are simply how I train. They have nothing to do with effectiveness. As for supporting effectiveness, nothing short of video of competition would satisfy your request, I think. I just don't feel the need to prove anything to you.

And, again, the Aikido you're referring to isn't what I train/teach. Different art, though related.

 

[JowGaWolf]

It's possible that some of the principles are valid and some are not, but we cannot differentiate between them because the goal of training is choreography and not combat. I don't think we can get beyond 1 because the few folks in this thread who train in aikido are unwilling to share evidence that some or all of the principles are sound.

I'm not even to that point of choreography or none combat classification. I just want one technique that is said to be Aikido so that I can look at that one technique to.

In general systems usually use strikes that are found within the system to train attacks that are found in the system. Even if it's a system of only counters. They would need to have some type of strike in which to train a counter. I'm flexible with the "work as taught" because most TMA's dont' follow this method. Things in general are traditionally done to make it difficult to understand this TMA unless you have some kind of solid foundation of experiencing getting punched kicked, and defending punches and kicks.

It's very clear that there are many different varieties of Aikido and I'll probably just have to pick one even if stuff was added to it. While it may not speak to the "Whole of Aikido" it will at least speak to "That variation of Aikido" I think there's are enough brains here to be able to reverse engineer some basics.

 

[Martial D]

The only style of aikido I've seen with any form of competition or non choreographed resistive training is tommiki(sp?) and they have some weird rules where you aren't allowed to grab and one guy needs to be holding a dildo so I dunno...

 

[Steve]

The statements in question are simply how I train. They have nothing to do with effectiveness. As for supporting effectiveness, nothing short of video of competition would satisfy your request, I think. I just don't feel the need to prove anything to you.

And, again, the Aikido you're referring to isn't what I train/teach. Different art, though related.

I don't expect you to prove anything to me. But making claims you have no intention of supporting with evidence seems counterproductive. That's really all there is to it.

Design a test and test it. Figure out what you want to be able to do and then risk failing. And if that test is too narrow to evaluate, figure out other tests. It's not rocket science, though they actually fire up the occasional rocket to see if what they're doing works.

 

[Steve]

The only style of aikido I've seen with any form of competition or non choreographed resistive training is tommiki(sp?) and they have some weird rules where you aren't allowed to grab and one guy needs to be holding a dildo so I dunno...

Step in the right direction. Figure out what skills you want to evaluate, design a test, and go for it. The skills you test will improve. If you find that the test causes other skills to atrophy, design another test.

 

[Martial D]

Step in the right direction. Figure out what skills you want to evaluate, design a test, and go for it. The skills you test will improve. If you find that the test causes other skills to atrophy, design another test.

Like, what if a greased up naked guy you can't grab on to attacks you in a porn shop.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I don't expect you to prove anything to me. But making claims you have no intention of supporting with evidence seems counterproductive. That's really all there is to it.

Design a test and test it. Figure out what you want to be able to do and then risk failing. And if that test is too narrow to evaluate, figure out other tests. It's not rocket science, though they actually fire up the occasional rocket to see if what they're doing works.

I like the rocket science bit. That's exactly what learning anything is like a series of failures and small successes and eventually one gains a better understanding and more success. How many inventors crash Flying machines before we understood enough to fly. When it comes to my training know what works for me is just as important as knowing what works. I still fail with some techniques which is why I comfortable telling another Jow ga practitioners"nah it doesn't work that way." It doesn't mean I know how it works. It just means I have personal experience with failing. But I'm always open to the idea that I failed due to the lack of my understanding.