Aikido.. The reality?

[Martial D]

You link a video of a guy choking a guy out on the street as an example of "BJJ in a fight" and yet 7 videos showing the same amount of substance are a "broken line" towards proving my point? Sure. You have been arguing that Aikido and more recently, police training is all people trying to catch punches to throw wrist locks, yet when given detailed explanation you breeze over it and now dismiss it as "pages of misconception".

Let's take the double leg takedown, the first move you learn in high school wrestling, it works great, until you run into anyone that expects it. Try a double leg takedown in an actual fight against someone who knows what they are doing and you are going to end up with a knee in your face, someone wailing on the back of your head or choked in a guillotine. Does the technique work? Sure, sometimes, against people who don't expect it or who don't know how to counter it. As a constantly repeatable technique? No, because there is for one, no such thing as a move that works equally well against different people, in different environments. It doesn't work two out of two times in MMA much less anywhere else, that's why so many schools train to sprawl.

The two wrist lock techniques you seem to think makeup the entirety of Aikido are taught as counters to a grab. They work perfectly fine for this purpose, to disarm an attacker or to disable a violent drunk, which, contrary to what you may think, is the vast majority of violent assaults a member of the public will face, if ever, in their lifetime. I can count on one finger, the number of street fights I have been in with a well trained, disciplined opponent and that lasted long enough for him to get a baton across the shin and to get put in handcuffs. What I can tell you is that I have been attacked many times by people trying to hit me with things, stab me or someone else or trying your famous double leg takedown and the aikido has ended plenty of those altercations in one or two techniques, with minimal or sometimes even no injury to everyone involved. I've also never arrived on scene to a martial arts fight in progress between two experienced fighters, nor have I heard about that happening to anyone else I have ever worked with. Surprise! Martial arts masters tend to not walk around getting into street fights.

Fights in the real world don't work like an MMA ring, the combatants are rarely sober or athletic and usually the person doing the assault on a regular person is an idiot with little to no training. Criminals are generally lazy people who are fairly cowardly and many times are on drugs. The other place where people like to fight is the bar, where technique beyond wild haymakers ever gets used. For these altercations, Aikido and its underlying principles, tend to work fine. Now if we are talking about a professional, mixed martial arts fight in a ring, Aikido is not going to work well, its hard to do hand manipulations against a sweaty, greased up opponent with MMA gloves on. Finger and wrist locks are banned, slams against a fighter on the ground looking to execute a technique are banned and any single martial art in this setting is going to be at a severe disadvantage without another discipline to round it out. IE BJJ without striking is next to worthless, same with Aikido, you would have to at least pair it with something like boxing or some other combative striking discipline (hence MMA) to make any of it practical. If you get on the ground in a street fight you are getting kicked in the face by the friend of whoever you are fighting, that's a fact more often than not.

I'll concede that a majority of what we see and how we see it trained in the Aikido world is not good and not realistic, but that's different than writing off the whole system. It's also not a simple case of imaginary punch catching and for the record, I'm advocating for people to learn it alongside other stuff like judo, BJJ, etc, thats how I learned it and it has informed and helped me in those other pursuits. Now you can take what I've said or not, you can continue to insist that no one has met your personal litmus test but for the purposes of honestly explaining the merits/flaws of Aikido as a system, I think you've been given enough time, energy and explanation to change your mind or re-evaluate your opinion of it being imaginary punch catching if your mind is actually open enough to have a valid discussion. As I said before, if your just here to troll then be honest about it, because short snippy one liners are not a counter argument and neither is throwing out false prepositions like you have been.

Not going to respond to all of that, just here to point out wrist locks are perfectly legal in MMA.

You just never see them because getting the wrist on anyone that's paying attention, trained or not, is nearly impossible.

 

[drop bear]

it can be entirely subjective or people wouldnt drive bad cars, there would only be one good car and you would have to all drive that, even of you really didnt want to, coz someone said it was the best

even if you went for value for money, value is automatically a subjective term

For you It might be. In which case you take on the role of the zealot.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah. But it's being argued as entirely subjective.

Much of it is. I may prefer better mileage, while you prefer more power. Maybe I want more room, and you want a sleeker look. We could measure some of those things objectively, but the decision isn't an objective one. Even some that are measureable (more room, for instance) aren't really as objective as they seem. There's more to that preference than just how many cubic centimetres of space are involved.

Sometimes, folks just want what they want, and there's no really good objective measure involved.

 

[drop bear]

Much of it is. I may prefer better mileage, while you prefer more power. Maybe I want more room, and you want a sleeker look. We could measure some of those things objectively, but the decision isn't an objective one. Even some that are measureable (more room, for instance) aren't really as objective as they seem. There's more to that preference than just how many cubic centimetres of space are involved.

Sometimes, folks just want what they want, and there's no really good objective measure involved.

So flat earth is as viable as a round one because you have to test everything subjectively.

 

[drop bear]

You link a video of a guy choking a guy out on the street as an example of "BJJ in a fight" and yet 7 videos showing the same amount of substance are a "broken line" towards proving my point?

Which Aikido school did your examples belong to?

 

[drop bear]

You link a video of a guy choking a guy out on the street as an example of "BJJ in a fight" and yet 7 videos showing the same amount of substance are a "broken line" towards proving my point? Sure. You have been arguing that Aikido and more recently, police training is all people trying to catch punches to throw wrist locks, yet when given detailed explanation you breeze over it and now dismiss it as "pages of misconception".

Let's take the double leg takedown, the first move you learn in high school wrestling, it works great, until you run into anyone that expects it. Try a double leg takedown in an actual fight against someone who knows what they are doing and you are going to end up with a knee in your face, someone wailing on the back of your head or choked in a guillotine. Does the technique work? Sure, sometimes, against people who don't expect it or who don't know how to counter it. As a constantly repeatable technique? No, because there is for one, no such thing as a move that works equally well against different people, in different environments. It doesn't work two out of two times in MMA much less anywhere else, that's why so many schools train to sprawl.

The two wrist lock techniques you seem to think makeup the entirety of Aikido are taught as counters to a grab. They work perfectly fine for this purpose, to disarm an attacker or to disable a violent drunk, which, contrary to what you may think, is the vast majority of violent assaults a member of the public will face, if ever, in their lifetime. I can count on one finger, the number of street fights I have been in with a well trained, disciplined opponent and that lasted long enough for him to get a baton across the shin and to get put in handcuffs. What I can tell you is that I have been attacked many times by people trying to hit me with things, stab me or someone else or trying your famous double leg takedown and the aikido has ended plenty of those altercations in one or two techniques, with minimal or sometimes even no injury to everyone involved. I've also never arrived on scene to a martial arts fight in progress between two experienced fighters, nor have I heard about that happening to anyone else I have ever worked with. Surprise! Martial arts masters tend to not walk around getting into street fights.

Fights in the real world don't work like an MMA ring, the combatants are rarely sober or athletic and usually the person doing the assault on a regular person is an idiot with little to no training. Criminals are generally lazy people who are fairly cowardly and many times are on drugs. The other place where people like to fight is the bar, where technique beyond wild haymakers ever gets used. For these altercations, Aikido and its underlying principles, tend to work fine. Now if we are talking about a professional, mixed martial arts fight in a ring, Aikido is not going to work well, its hard to do hand manipulations against a sweaty, greased up opponent with MMA gloves on. Finger and wrist locks are banned, slams against a fighter on the ground looking to execute a technique are banned and any single martial art in this setting is going to be at a severe disadvantage without another discipline to round it out. IE BJJ without striking is next to worthless, same with Aikido, you would have to at least pair it with something like boxing or some other combative striking discipline (hence MMA) to make any of it practical. If you get on the ground in a street fight you are getting kicked in the face by the friend of whoever you are fighting, that's a fact more often than not.

I'll concede that a majority of what we see and how we see it trained in the Aikido world is not good and not realistic, but that's different than writing off the whole system. It's also not a simple case of imaginary punch catching and for the record, I'm advocating for people to learn it alongside other stuff like judo, BJJ, etc, thats how I learned it and it has informed and helped me in those other pursuits. Now you can take what I've said or not, you can continue to insist that no one has met your personal litmus test but for the purposes of honestly explaining the merits/flaws of Aikido as a system, I think you've been given enough time, energy and explanation to change your mind or re-evaluate your opinion of it being imaginary punch catching if your mind is actually open enough to have a valid discussion. As I said before, if your just here to troll then be honest about it, because short snippy one liners are not a counter argument and neither is throwing out false prepositions like you have been.

Ok. The bits where you are wrong.

I argue that police restraints training is generally pretty bad. Nothing to do with catching punches and more to do with catching punches with your face as a pretty common reaction to people getting their arms grabbed. Which happens a fair bit. Especially after two weeks of training.

If you look at MMA competition. That allows striking and guillotines you are suggesting that what is the most successful throw in the competition works because nobody is expecting it. This is wrong everyone is expecting a double leg.

A wrist lock works fine against a grab is a statement that doesn't actually mean anything. Because we have no idea of the context. I mean we do se MMA guys hitting double legs we can get an honest idea of it's chances. We don't see Aikido guys escaping grabs with wrist locks. Exept demo's of course.

Anecdotal stories about how a fight goes is a very common method of dogma. So you say in a fight this happens. But that doesn't really mean much. What if I say in a fight the opposite happens. Then there is no way of discerning truth from fiction. Fights are mostly something doing stuff. Is just an easy way to explain why you can't do the thing you say.

Anyway. Slams are not banned in MMA.

Multi disciplines. You will find that there are needs for multiple disciplines but the individual disciplines can actually do what they say. So if say for example they said they could escape a grab with a wrist lock. You would be actually able to see that.

I am not writing off the whole system. I am writing off justifying a martial art with stories and assertions but no real evidence.

Especially when those assertions are not really true.

 

[drop bear]

Not going to respond to all of that, just here to point out wrist locks are perfectly legal in MMA.

You just never see them because getting the wrist on anyone that's paying attention, trained or not, is nearly impossible.

I am notorious for hitting wrist locks in the grapple. But that doesn't mean Aikido works.

I have never done Aikido.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So flat earth is as viable as a round one because you have to test everything subjectively.

Nice jump to utter stupidity. And you claim to have the rational approach.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I have never done Aikido.

Really? I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you had. So why the utter certainty that you know how it is trained? Why the hard-on to attack it every chance you get? I assumed you’d been hurt by Aikido at some point.

 

[jobo]

So flat earth is as viable as a round one because you have to test everything subjectively.

well that's interesting, especially as the world is nether of those, its spherical mostly, though if you want to be picky it's not actualy a truly spherical.

the fact that you think it might be round, is that you've taken information off someone who who has applied subjectivity to a scientific fact and come up with a fact that isnt factual and you've applied subjectivity that this person is to be trusted and belived them with out evidence as cearly there is no evidence its round as it isnt

that makes you slightly worse that a flat earther, who at least has applied the evidence that it looks flatish and ironically the flat earth is general depicted as being flat and round, so your half agreeing with their delusion

 

[Urban Trekker]

,

 

[Martial D]

I am notorious for hitting wrist locks in the grapple. But that doesn't mean Aikido works.

I have never done Aikido.

Well on the ground ya, I should have clarified I meant on the feet. Mia culpa.

 

[geezer]

well that's interesting, especially as the world is nether of those, its spherical mostly, though if you want to be picky it's not actualy a truly spherical.

the fact that you think it might be round, is that you've taken information off someone who who has applied subjectivity to a scientific fact and come up with a fact that isnt factual and you've applied subjectivity that this person is to be trusted and belived them with out evidence as cearly there is no evidence its round as it isnt

that makes you slightly worse that a flat earther, who at least has applied the evidence that it looks flatish and ironically the flat earth is general depicted as being flat and round, so your half agreeing with their delusion

Jobo, you must be feeling especially contrary today. From the context of his post, it's obvious that in describing the earth, Drop Bear is using the word "round" in the vernacular sense to mean "spherical".

We don't need no stinkin' "grammar police" nitpicking over voacabulary usage, especially when even the native English speakers on the forum come from different nations spread around the globe, with each of us accustomed to different usage and spelling. What matters is communication, bro.

By chiding Drop over this and implying that he doesn't understand the difference between a round, flat disc and the spheroidal form of the planet you are just being cute, or insulting, and in either case derailing the thread. So, let it go. Let's not make the whole discussion unnecessarily contentious.

 

[jobo]

Jobo, you must be feeling especially contrary today. From the context of his post, it's obvious that in describing the earth, Drop Bear is using the word "round" in the vernacular sense to mean "spherical".

We don't need no stinkin' "grammar police" nitpicking over voacabulary usage, especially when even the native English speakers on the forum come from different nations spread around the globe, with each of us accustomed to different usage and spelling. What matters is communication, bro.

By chiding Drop over this and implying that he doesn't understand the difference between a round, flat disc and the spheroidal form of the planet you are just being cute, or insulting, and in either case derailing the thread. So, let it go. Let's not make the whole discussion unnecessarily contentious.

it doesnt mean spherical in any sence, well not over the age of 7, it infact means anything you want it to mean as it's not a geometric shape, and as it means anything, it also means nothing

neither of course is flat is shape

we are discussing subjectivity, and both words are subjective assessments, which then raises the hilarious fact that he was highlighting the subjectivity of flat earth whilst using subjectivity of his own to do so.

its just the irony of one scientific illiterate correct other scientific illiterates that im highlighting , I dont care if he doesnt know what shapes are

it's the same with flat eathers, if they dont have the capacity to realise that what they are proposing is a disc, then its really pointless trying to convince them it's spherical coz they just dont understand shapes at all

 

[dunc]

Well on the ground ya, I should have clarified I meant on the feet. Mia culpa.

I hit them all the time in grappling: standing, kneeling and on the ground
What I will say is that there are not many ways to hit wrist locks in isolation from standing. Generally they need to be combined with something else, whereas on the ground you can isolate the forearm and attack them more directly

 

[drop bear]

well that's interesting, especially as the world is nether of those, its spherical mostly, though if you want to be picky it's not actualy a truly spherical.

the fact that you think it might be round, is that you've taken information off someone who who has applied subjectivity to a scientific fact and come up with a fact that isnt factual and you've applied subjectivity that this person is to be trusted and belived them with out evidence as cearly there is no evidence its round as it isnt

that makes you slightly worse that a flat earther, who at least has applied the evidence that it looks flatish and ironically the flat earth is general depicted as being flat and round, so your half agreeing with their delusion

It doesn't matter what the earth is if we can only judge it subjectively.

Which is my point.

 

[jobo]

It doesn't matter what the earth is if we can only judge it subjectively.

Which is my point.

well sort of,

it's both inconvient and or quite exspensive to verify what shape the earth is, though possible. it easier to prove it isnt " flat" which only really needs some binoculars and a coast line

which only leaves you with either a subjective judgement to belive what you are told it is or to charter a plane and do a few laps to see for yourself.

as few have actually done that you only have anecdotal evidence or video that could be faked and no way to objectively assess that evidence other than my elimentary teacher said so

 

[drop bear]

Really? I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you had. So why the utter certainty that you know how it is trained? Why the hard-on to attack it every chance you get? I assumed you’d been hurt by Aikido at some point.

Of course because I am forced to invest before I can really know?

Look I haven't used healing crystals. But there is no evidence it works. So I remain unconvinced they are medicine.

Otherwise there is an entire cultural gap where I have gone off the whole belief style of argument. And prefer a more critical thinking style. It irritates me that martial arts is treated like a religion. And I think it cheapens the concept.

 

[drop bear]

well sort of,

it's both inconvient and or quite exspensive to verify what shape the earth is, though possible. it easier to prove it isnt " flat" which only really needs some binoculars and a coast line

which only leaves you with either a subjective judgement to belive what you are told it is or to charter a plane and do a few laps to see for yourself.

as few have actually done that you only have anecdotal evidence or video that could be faked and no way to objectively assess that evidence other than my elimentary teacher said so

Why bother proving it. If it ultimately doesn't matter?

 

[drop bear]

I hit them all the time in grappling: standing, kneeling and on the ground
What I will say is that there are not many ways to hit wrist locks in isolation from standing. Generally they need to be combined with something else, whereas on the ground you can isolate the forearm and attack them more directly

Pin the elbow and bodyweight. If you don't want to snap on the twisty ones. Which I don't because they can wind up doing nothing and injuring people.