ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

[DaveB]

so when you have done all that is it still aikidio?

Yes because you haven't changed any of the principles that make up the art. You've just gotten better at using them.

 

[jobo]

Yes because you haven't changed any of the principles that make up the art. You've just gotten better at using them.

why do you think all the experienced aikido instructors teach it in a bad way?

 

[DaveB]

I don't.

People teach as they were taught and aikido comes from long before the internet and mma turned every discussion into a style vs style battle.

I think arts like aikido were not designed for a combat sports arena, hence no aikido tournaments.

For self defence I think Aikido probably does well at least as often as not. Enough to convince those with long term interest.

I wrote this earlier in the thread but it seems relevant here:

Person c shakes his head sadly at the lack of critical thinking on display.

Funny thing is this has happened over and over again but some people refuse to learn the lesson..

Anyone remember when high kicks were totally impractical and couldn't work in a if like fight?

Karate was the ma community whipping boy for decades. Totally impractical... before Machida.

Nobody stops to think why people got these "common sense" assumptions wrong. Or how come despite the endless "evidence" of these things not working, suddenly they work for every Tom Dick or Harry.

Ultimately this issue of which systems work is about traditional arts most of which are from the 19th century or older.
The thing with these systems is they were put together when there was no safe way to practice hitting so you couldn't learn from hundreds and hundreds of matches plus thousands of practice fights the way we can with modern combat sports.

But the fact is if you aim to win fights with punches then any victory by punching validates your art.
Old battlefield arts like jujitsu were validated on the battlefield or the art died with its student's.

All that needs to happen is adaptation of training methods and with that adaptation a greater insight into the science of fighting. Insight that was not available to past generations.

I didn't start this thread to say that nothing needs to change. Clearly lots of people struggle to make use of their fighting styles in the modern environment. But it is just wrong thinking to believe that the style is making bad fight decisions when it's the person employing the style who gets knocked out.

 

[jobo]

I don't.

People teach as they were taught and aikido comes from long before the internet and mma turned every discussion into a style vs style battle.

I think arts like aikido were not designed for a combat sports arena, hence no aikido tournaments.

For self defence I think Aikido probably does well at least as often as not. Enough to convince those with long term interest.

I wrote this earlier in the thread but it seems relevant here:

well if you cant make vast improvements to the effectiveness,just by a few tweaks, then it fair to conclude that teacher with decades of experience are bad teachers as they haven't done so
what other reasonable conclusion is there

 

[DaveB]

well if you cant make vast improvements to the effectiveness,just by a few tweaks, then it fair to conclude that teacher with decades of experience are bad teachers as they haven't done so
what other reasonable conclusion is there

Which teacher?

I'm discussing my idea of Aikido, but I've never trained the art. I could be completely wrong. It would be arrogant and stupid go label thousands of aikido teachers I've never trained with.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

well if you cant make vast improvements to the effectiveness,just by a few tweaks, then it fair to conclude that teacher with decades of experience are bad teachers as they haven't done so
what other reasonable conclusion is there

Until you remember that a lot of "old-school" traditional MA teachers (particularly Chinese and Japanese influenced) believe that any chance to the system at all, no matter how small, is blasphemy of the highest order.

 

[drop bear]

Until you remember that a lot of "old-school" traditional MA teachers (particularly Chinese and Japanese influenced) believe that any chance to the system at all, no matter how small, is blasphemy of the highest order.

All of this kind of breaks the origional concept anyway. If any system can work. Why would we need to change the system.

 

[jobo]

Which teacher?

I'm discussing my idea of Aikido, but I've never trained the art. I could be completely wrong. It would be arrogant and stupid go label thousands of aikido teachers I've never trained with.

you put this forward of proof of your claim, now your saying you might be,COMPLETELY wrong about aikidio, where does that leave your claim?

 

[Martial D]

I don't.

People teach as they were taught and aikido comes from long before the internet and mma turned every discussion into a style vs style battle.

Well, it looks like someone revealed their age, or maybe is so old they forgot the pre internet world..

I'll go with the former. 20s to maybe early 30s?

 

[Midnight-shadow]

All of this kind of breaks the origional concept anyway. If any system can work. Why would we need to change the system.

Nothing is ever perfect, and there is always room for improvement. In the past 200 years our knowledge of bio mechanics and physics has improved exponentially and the training should reflect that. This goes not only for Martial Arts but for all physical activities.

 

[DaveB]

Until you remember that a lot of "old-school" traditional MA teachers (particularly Chinese and Japanese influenced) believe that any chance to the system at all, no matter how small, is blasphemy of the highest order.

Some do, and others break away from those and make offshoot schools of the same art.

This is a moot point though because I'm talking about additions to the training not changing the style.

I've never encountered a martial artist who was averse to using new and different training drills. Every teacher I've trained with has shown me training they got from different sources than their teacher and the few who would wait for their grandmaster to authorise new training at annual seminars were still getting new training just created or found by the grand master.

Different training does not give you a different art unless it is adding elements beyond the scope of the arts principles.

Nothing I described for aikido does that.

 

[DaveB]

you put this forward of proof of your claim, now your saying you might be,COMPLETELY wrong about aikidio, where does that leave your claim?

I never made any claim about aikido, i dont train it.

I was commenting on the aikido I have seen in response to your question. It has nothing to do with the claim about training being key to effectiveness except as an illustration of what you could do if you found a problem. But the issue I described might not be an issue. I don't know enough about the art and it's trends to say.

 

[DaveB]

Well, it looks like someone revealed their age, or maybe is so old they forgot the pre internet world..

I'll go with the former. 20s to maybe early 30s?

Still no counter arguments then.

 

[DaveB]

All of this kind of breaks the origional concept anyway. If any system can work. Why would we need to change the system.

If we were changing its system we would.

Any system can work if you train it right
Therefore
A system not being trained right
Needs
To change it's training
So that it is training right.

See we're talking about the training changing.
Not the system.

Try and keep up.

 

[jobo]

If we were changing its system we would.

Any system can work if you train it right
Therefore
A system not being trained right
Needs
To change it's training
So that it is training right.

See we're talking about the training changing.
Not the system.

Try and keep up.

now you have decided that you might be COMPLETELY wrong about aikido, can you give an example of how you would change the training of a particular ma that you are confident about

 

[DaveB]

now you have decided that you might be COMPLETELY wrong about aikido, can you give an example of how you would change the training of a particular ma that you are confident about

You seem to be having a lot of trouble understanding me.

I have no problem with the martial arts I have trained. I cannot comment on those I haven't trained, so asking me to refine the training of random martial arts isn't going to work.

You commented that you would change wing chun, so why not tell me what you think is wrong with wing chun and we can consider training options.

 

[jobo]

You seem to be having a lot of trouble understanding me.

I have no problem with the martial arts I have trained. I cannot comment on those I haven't trained, so asking me to refine the training of random martial arts isn't going to work.

You commented that you would change wing chun, so why not tell me what you think is wrong with wing chun and we can consider training options.

no mate its your claim that ALLarts can be made effective with the right training. but you can't even give one example of how an art could be changed to make it more effective. I'm beginning to think you haven't thought this through before posting

 

[DaveB]

So because I don't have a problem with any particular art...

...that means training does not determine a fighters effectiveness?

 

[DaveB]

Do you think this taekwondo guy:

Trained the same as this taekwondo guy?

...or the same as this taekwondo guy?

Yet they are all tkd. Training.

 

[Martial D]

Still no counter arguments then.

LOL, ok you missed my point. Fair enough.

Different styles, and even lineages within styles we're downright hostile to one another long before "the internet and mma".

In fact, it was worse because everyone still believed in the mystical and unrealistic ****(as opposed to a smaller number of you with those beliefs today), as nobody was realistically verifying anything.

As per your OP ..it's a smoking wreck, what's left to argue against? Until you can use those mental gymnastics of yours to account for the fact that certain ways of fighting have been shown to work while others have been shown not to(ie if all styles can be effective we should expect to see a more egalitarian distribution of what effective fighters use), there's nothing to really argue. Your just tossing off.

Unless you are saying all these decades deep masters don't know how to train their styles properly? And you know better?

In reality, the scope of what 'works' is rather narrow compared to the myriad of existent styles. This is what the evidence tells us.