Aikido.. The reality?

[drop bear]

For choosing to assume something without evidence? Yeah, I can.

Without evidence it is all assumptions.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I'm glad I keep things simple. If someone told me that a system is used for fighting then it will either work or it won't based on my understanding of it. Either way the results will be one of these.

1. A system works I don't understand it
2. A system works I understand it
3. A system doesn't work because I don't understand it
4. A system doesn't work because I understand it

These are the only possibilities
1. A system can work even if you don't understand it. An example (C++) or your computer. As long as someone understands how it works, you don't need to. You only need to use it.

2. A system works because you understand it. This would be those martial arts who know and understand the system enough to know why it functions the way it does. Depending on their knowledge they can even make changes to the system to make it better. Windows 98 vs Windows 10.

3. The system doesn't work because I don't understand it. For example. Wang understands programming he can use it. I can't use it because I don't understand it.

4. The system doesn't work because I understand it. This would be like someone saying to put disinfectant inside the body, one person may think that will work, but doctors have knowledge that it won't work.

Martial arts is like this. If you come up with 20 Characteristics of a fight that is true for everyone. Then a valid fighting system will address the majority of them. If it doesn't , then it's probably safe to assume that it's not a valid system. Basic on those universal characteristics.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Without evidence it is all assumptions.

Yep. And you choose to assume I’m lying - without evidence. So, yeah, that’s pretty douchey.

 

[drop bear]

Yep. And you choose to assume I’m lying - without evidence. So, yeah, that’s pretty douchey.

Not at all. There is no requirement for me to believe something without evidence. That isn't duchey. That is critical thinking.

It is actually duchey not to provide evidence and instead rely on emotional attacks.

Here is how the burden of proof works and why it is fundamental to understanding how things work.

 

[punisher73]

Not quite ...

Little bit of trivia. When putting together the first UFC, they were supposed to have full-contact stickfighting (due to the Dog Brothers), but they thought it was too violent and dropped the idea.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not at all. There is no requirement for me to believe something without evidence. That isn't duchey. That is critical thinking.

It is actually duchey not to provide evidence and instead rely on emotional attacks.

Here is how the burden of proof works and why it is fundamental to understanding how things work.

Yet you choose to believe specific things about my training, also without evidence. Things nobody (except you) has ever claimed to be true about my training. As I said, you choose to call me a liar to my face, without evidence. Douchey.

 

[Oni_Kadaki]

Actually, nothing you said contradicts my post. I agree that drills are not sufficient for reliably developing fighting skills (I think it's possible, but don't know how you'd know without sparring).

Aikido's "randori" isn't the same thing as Judo's. It's a different kind of drill, with more dynamic feeds, but isn't anything like sparring/rolling/Judo randori. I prefer Judo's use of the term.



You do this a lot. You're citing a different art than what I trained in. They'd be fast to draw that distinction. I do use flow drills. They are a favorite tool of mine. I learned them from two of my instructors, though I use them more than either of them did. I also use sparring (strikes only), rolling (groundwork only), randori (grappling only, Judo-style), and free sparring (any and all of the above). But you should know all of that, since I've told you before. You just choose to ignore it and cling to your early assumptions about what I teach. Kinda lazy.

So, in other words, you use Aikido in the context of MMA and, in doing so, presumably learn what is practical, what isn't, and how/when to apply the stuff that is.

 

[Flying Crane]

So, in other words, you use Aikido in the context of MMA and, in doing so, presumably learn what is practical, what isn't, and how/when to apply the stuff that is.

I’m not sure I follow your reasoning. MMA is not the yardstick against which all martial usefulness is measured. Plenty of things that might not work in the context of an mma competition are still quite useful outside of that venue.

 

[Oni_Kadaki]

I’m not sure I follow your reasoning. MMA is not the yardstick against which all martial usefulness is measured. Plenty of things that might not work in the context of an mma competition are still quite useful outside of that venue.

Quite correct... in my career field, we frequently practice shooting bad guys in the face because it is a very effective way of stopping them, but that certainly won't help me in the context of MMA. However, MMA helps simulate how reliably a technique can be applied against an opponent that is actively trying to punch you in the face as you apply it, as opposed to a cooperative partner. Are there limitations in MMA? Absolutely. However, even recognizing how very artificial the MMA situation is, in my mind, it is a great proving ground for techniques.

 

[Flying Crane]

Quite correct... in my career field, we frequently practice shooting bad guys in the face because it is a very effective way of stopping them, but that certainly won't help me in the context of MMA. However, MMA helps simulate how reliably a technique can be applied against an opponent that is actively trying to punch you in the face as you apply it, as opposed to a cooperative partner. Are there limitations in MMA? Absolutely. However, even recognizing how very artificial the MMA situation is, in my mind, it is a great proving ground for techniques.

So are you saying that the best way for a person (any person who practices martial arts of any kind) to ensure that they can use their skills, is to enter an mma competition?

 

[Oni_Kadaki]

So are you saying that the best way for a person (any person who practices martial arts of any kind) to ensure that they can use their skills, is to enter an mma competition?

That depends... personally, as a doctoral student and military member who is 33 years old, I'd rather not risk an injury, which seems far more likely in a competition than in friendly sparring among colleagues at the dojo. With that being said, I have no doubt that I would learn a lot in competition. To me, it all comes down to what you're willing to do to have certainty that your techniques work... I found out that at least some of my training works quite well when a fight came to me (which, by the way, in no way resembled MMA, going back to the point of it being artificial), but, prior to that, I had no way of knowing for sure. Also, please bear in mind that I am very much a scientist and a skeptic, and so I have a higher requirement for objective proof about things than many people. Take that for what you will.

 

[Flying Crane]

That depends... personally, as a doctoral student and military member who is 33 years old, I'd rather not risk an injury, which seems far more likely in a competition than in friendly sparring among colleagues at the dojo. With that being said, I have no doubt that I would learn a lot in competition. To me, it all comes down to what you're willing to do to have certainty that your techniques work... I found out that at least some of my training works quite well when a fight came to me (hich, by the way, in no way resembled MMA, going back to the point of it being artificial), but, prior to that, I had no way of knowing for sure. Also, please bear in mind that I am very much a scientist and a skeptic, and so I have a higher requirement for objective proof about things than many people. Take that for what you will.

Fair enough.

I guess I would describe my position as for those who are interested, mma type competition can be a proving ground for them. But it is in no way mandatory or the only way to develop one’s skill set, and could quite probably lead to erroneous conclusions for a lot of people if they did it. I will simply never support any notion that mma is THE yardstick against which all martial training must be measured.

 

[Oni_Kadaki]

Fair enough.

I guess I would describe my position as for those who are interested, mma type competition can be a proving ground for them. But it is in no way mandatory or the only way to develop one’s skill set, and could quite probably lead to erroneous conclusions for a lot of people if they did it. I will simply never support any notion that mma is THE yardstick against which all martial training must be measured.

That is fair... I guess I see it as the most likely, ethical way to test your technique. One Aikido Sensei of mine has a wealth of application experience from getting into fights, and that makes him more credible... But to me, getting in fights is not desirable. A nidan that I train with works as a bouncer, and he reports having put Aikido to good use in that context, which I'd argue is a pretty damn good test. My retired-NYPD Sensei is another who found a prosocial way to test his ability in real life. Failing such jobs/professions, however, I see MMA as a consensual way of training without the restrictions often seen in sparring in specific arts (e.g. in BJJ you don't strike, in TKD you dont grapple).

 

[Flying Crane]

That is fair... I guess I see it as the most likely, ethical way to test your technique. One Aikido Sensei of mine has a wealth of application experience from getting into fights, and that makes him more credible... But to me, getting in fights is not desirable. A nidan that I train with works as a bouncer, and he reports having put Aikido to good use in that context, which I'd argue is a pretty damn good test. My retired-NYPD Sensei is another who found a prosocial way to test his ability in real life. Failing such jobs/professions, however, I see MMA as a consensual way of training without the restrictions often seen in sparring in specific arts (e.g. in BJJ you don't strike, in TKD you dont grapple).

Sure, it is an approach that and for the right person with the right motives, can be beneficial.

I think a lot depends on what you intend to get out of it, and what you intend to put into it. I suspect that most people will fare poorly in their first mma competition, regardless of their level of training. In their first competition, the newness of it works against them. So then what is the end goal? Is it to become a competitor? If so, no problem. They learn from it and they keep competing and eventually get better in large part because they become more familiar and comfortable with the venue and the reality within the competition ring and really dial into what works best in that venue.

But if the goal is not to become a regular competitor and instead just enter as a test of oneself, then I think the results are unlikely to be encouraging and can lead to erroneous conclusions. As a new competitor, again success is unlikely especially if one’s opponent is more experienced within the competition venue. So a person enters a competition as a personal test and without desire to enter subsequent competitions, loses, concludes that their skills don’t work, and that is that. In truth, that may not be anywhere near reality. All it has proven is that as an inexperienced competitor, they lost to someone who had more experience and comfort within the competition venue. In order to really learn from the experience, someone needs to become a regular competitor. For most people I would say that is simply unrealistic. You have said so for yourself, by way of example.

So I just don’t buy the notion that mma competition is the test for everyone. For some people who have that interest, it is great. It is definitely NOT great for probably the overwhelming percentage of people involved in martial arts.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Fair enough.

I guess I would describe my position as for those who are interested, mma type competition can be a proving ground for them. But it is in no way mandatory or the only way to develop one’s skill set, and could quite probably lead to erroneous conclusions for a lot of people if they did it. I will simply never support any notion that mma is THE yardstick against which all martial training must be measured.

Besides the MMA format, I like the Sanda format better . It doesn't have the ground game, so the ability to remain standing is important for this game. Before the Sanda term was even created, we use the term Combat Shuai Chiao (CSC) instead.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Fair enough.

I guess I would describe my position as for those who are interested, mma type competition can be a proving ground for them. But it is in no way mandatory or the only way to develop one’s skill set, and could quite probably lead to erroneous conclusions for a lot of people if they did it. I will simply never support any notion that mma is THE yardstick against which all martial training must be measured.

I agree. MMA has a lot going for it as far as being interdisciplinary and a rough contact sport. But it is a sport and bound by certain rules. If a little lucky, I could take an MMA fighter out of action with an eye poke or kick to the groin, for example. Most TMA is not designed for competition against highly trained fighters. It was for more common self defense needs. As a sport, the goal is to win rounds on the scorecard, or end the fight with legal submission or KO. All techniques are geared toward this goal - just as in business, the goal by which success is measured is to show quarterly net profit to shareholders.

But there are other qualities and outcomes other than winning a match or showing shareholder return. In business there is R&D, capital expenditures, community service and loyalty to employees. While in the long run, they may aid in profits, in the short term, they do not. And companies interested in short term results (for various reasons) do not consider these other, more altruistic, factors - only the current bottom line.

Martial arts, also, has long term investments, the benefits which may not impact the short term goal of winning a fight. But in the long run, make for a better person. The yardstick in TMA is a longer one than in MMA. Not measured in rounds of minutes each, but in the decades of a lifetime. TMA is a long term investment that gradually builds wealth, giving the practitioner a diversified, secure and strong overall portfolio.

 

[drop bear]

Yet you choose to believe specific things about my training, also without evidence. Things nobody (except you) has ever claimed to be true about my training. As I said, you choose to call me a liar to my face, without evidence. Douchey.

Do you have evidence for that statement?

In that video, if you have a watch. It goes on to explain that the common theist counter argument is to be offended. Rather than just providing the evidence needed to support their statements.

And why the offence as an argument is also dismissed.

 

[drop bear]

Fair enough.

I guess I would describe my position as for those who are interested, mma type competition can be a proving ground for them. But it is in no way mandatory or the only way to develop one’s skill set, and could quite probably lead to erroneous conclusions for a lot of people if they did it. I will simply never support any notion that mma is THE yardstick against which all martial training must be measured.

Then suggest an alternative.

I mean technically it should be gradings. But they tend not to do that job at all well.

 

[drop bear]

Besides the MMA format, I like the Sanda format better . It doesn't have the ground game, so the ability to remain standing is important for this game. Before the Sanda term was even created, we use the term Combat Shuai Chiao (CSC) instead.

I pretty much lump them all together when I say MMA. that way if you wanted to be specific you could.

 

[Flying Crane]

Besides the MMA format, I like the Sanda format better . It doesn't have the ground game, so the ability to remain standing is important for this game. Before the Sanda term was even created, we use the term Combat Shuai Chiao (CSC) instead.

Again, fair enough if this is something you are interested in. But this also is not the yardstick against which all martial training must be measured.

People need to do what they are interested in and not concern themselves with what everyone else is doing and not try to judge other methods by the norms of their own methods.