Training half of martial arts bugs me.

[drop bear]

And, on top of that, you continue to talk about what I do as being quite similar to the Aikido you've seen. Which it quite likely isn't. But don't worry about that. You're biased by the word "Aikido", and it blinds you. I'm used to it.

Oh. The real aikido. Not that stuff that doesn't work on you tube.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

- Aikido is bad because the wrist control give your opponent too much freedom.
- Bagua system is bad because you cross your legs during circle walking.
- long fist system is bad because most of the movement is too big to be practical.
- SC system is bad because it doesn't have ground game.
- boxing is bad because a boxer doesn't know how to kick.
- ...

There is nothing wrong to say a MA system is bad as long as you can give a good reason for it.

And are talking about the right system. Which he actually isn't.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not really sure what Krav Maga has to do with me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Oh. The real aikido. Not that stuff that doesn't work on you tube.

Well, for starters, try the actual name of the base art I teach (Nihon Goshin Aikido, which isn't the same system). And then try discussing my actual curriculum, which is actually less aiki than any I'm aware of. So, no, not "the real Aikido". My Aikido. Not at all the same thing. What amuses me is I've actually told you this before, as well as what some of the differences are. This amuses me, because most of those differences are because I agree with your assessment of most of the Aikido I've seen. So I do things differently.

What you're doing would be like someone ragging on MMA because boxing doesn't teach kick defenses.

 

[dvcochran]

Then do it and prove your point. Don't just invent a story about it.

You are tiring bear.
What is it that you think is so special and mystic in MMA that 'works' that is not in many, many other MA's? You obsession with video borders on illogical. We all know there is video proof of good AND bad in ALL styles if a person wants to spend that much looking for it. Because MMA is much more overt and newer there is much more content which, of course, skews using video for Proof of data. Come on man, you have proven this logic over and over in your ranting.
You love your style. We all get it and that is a Good thing. It gives you no right or reason to run down every rabbit hole of everyone's else's style. What is your point? It has been totally lost on me.
That said, if you (or anyone) see a new person on the forum or in person who is going down the wrong road, by all means do your best to steer them in the right direction.

I do not know if you know this analogy but you have been 'beating a dead horse' for way too long.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

To be fair, i think the point of contention for aikido (and for tai chi and things like those two) is, they dont really focus on actually fighting someone. Yet there is a bloc of people (more so in some than others) which thinks it does heavily focus on that. That just seems like they are lying to themselves or missed the point of the style or what it has evolved into. Many things arent the same as they were say 50 years ago, or even 10 or 5.

If i get the ideology right for aikido, isnt the point meant to be not to hurt the person you are fighting? That just seems like loonacy in my eyes, and a secondary expressed purpose seems to be largely for spirtual devolopment using martial arts. Again presuming said info is right. So that means it shouldnt be on the first to do list for anyone after something for fighting. (which no one disputes, kind of like saying to do boxing when somone wants to throw people and joint lock them)

Then we get into how you name what ever system you do, the name you give something is quite important and what words you use. If you use aikido for example, it will be viewed as at least similar to Aikido aikido. Likewise if i stated i taught boxing, that would be associated with the sport of boxing, so people who wanted puglism wouldnt come to me, and people who wanted boxing would find out its not boxing.


Not entirely sure of the relivence though, that just seems to be the big point of contetion with it, and thats people are trying to say its something its not and get it to work for something it wasnt meant to work for. Which lets be fair, there is a lot of proof by now, by itself aikido now days doesnt really work for fighting. Im not even going to get into how you can ID a joint lock common in several systems as belonging soley to one though.


Note: I did a TL;DR again, plus i wanted some clarfication on the underlying ideology/principle/goal of Aikdio. Also seems like a fair assessment, along with MMA like Sports in general being a competition to see who is better in a fairly sterile enviorment on that day than the competitors in the action(s) at hand.

 

[skribs]

To be fair, i think the point of contention for aikido (and for tai chi and things like those two) is, they dont really focus on actually fighting someone. Yet there is a bloc of people (more so in some than others) which thinks it does heavily focus on that. That just seems like they are lying to themselves or missed the point of the style or what it has evolved into. Many things arent the same as they were say 50 years ago, or even 10 or 5.

If i get the ideology right for aikido, isnt the point meant to be not to hurt the person you are fighting? That just seems like loonacy in my eyes, and a secondary expressed purpose seems to be largely for spirtual devolopment using martial arts. Again presuming said info is right. So that means it shouldnt be on the first to do list for anyone after something for fighting. (which no one disputes, kind of like saying to do boxing when somone wants to throw people and joint lock them)

Then we get into how you name what ever system you do, the name you give something is quite important and what words you use. If you use aikido for example, it will be viewed as at least similar to Aikido aikido. Likewise if i stated i taught boxing, that would be associated with the sport of boxing, so people who wanted puglism wouldnt come to me, and people who wanted boxing would find out its not boxing.


Not entirely sure of the relivence though, that just seems to be the big point of contetion with it, and thats people are trying to say its something its not and get it to work for something it wasnt meant to work for. Which lets be fair, there is a lot of proof by now, by itself aikido now days doesnt really work for fighting. Im not even going to get into how you can ID a joint lock common in several systems as belonging soley to one though.


Note: I did a TL;DR again, plus i wanted some clarfication on the underlying ideology/principle/goal of Aikdio. Also seems like a fair assessment, along with MMA like Sports in general being a competition to see who is better in a fairly sterile enviorment on that day than the competitors in the action(s) at hand.

The problem is you're making generalizations and applying it to every school that does Aikido. There are some schools and lineages (of which I believe Gerry's is one) that seek to put the fighting back in Aikido, and actually train against an opponent.

To say "you train aikido, so you don't actually fight," without knowing anything about the way the individual or their school trains, is to make an inference. It's an assumption about what you don't know, based on related facts you do know. Those assumptions are usually safe to make, as long as you recognize them for what they are - assumptions. It's safe to assume that an aikido school doesn't spar. If an aikido practitioner says they do spar at their school, it's now a safe assumption to assume that they do. You can discuss with them how live the sparring is (they may think they're sparring because they have a partner), but you now have new information to base your opinion on their school.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

There are some schools and lineages (of which I believe Gerry's is one) that seek to put the fighting back in Aikido, and actually train against an opponent

Actually Gerry's art isn't a lineage of what most people call Aikido (Morohei Ueshiba's art). It just happens to share part of the same name. It's a cousin, in that it's partially derived from Daito Ryu Aikijutsu, but it's also partially derived from Judo, so you could say it's a cousin of BJJ in the same way.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Actually Gerry's art isn't a lineage of what most people call Aikido (Morohei Ueshiba's art). It just happens to share part of the same name. It's a cousin, in that it's partially derived from Daito Ryu Aikijutsu, but it's also partially derived from Judo, so you could say it's a cousin of BJJ in the same way.

Sounds kind of incestuous...

 

[drop bear]

Not really sure what Krav Maga has to do with me.

It is a generic issue with self defense instruction.

You of course train the real deal so won't have those issues.

 

[drop bear]

You are tiring bear.
What is it that you think is so special and mystic in MMA that 'works' that is not in many, many other MA's? You obsession with video borders on illogical. We all know there is video proof of good AND bad in ALL styles if a person wants to spend that much looking for it. Because MMA is much more overt and newer there is much more content which, of course, skews using video for Proof of data. Come on man, you have proven this logic over and over in your ranting.
You love your style. We all get it and that is a Good thing. It gives you no right or reason to run down every rabbit hole of everyone's else's style. What is your point? It has been totally lost on me.
That said, if you (or anyone) see a new person on the forum or in person who is going down the wrong road, by all means do your best to steer them in the right direction.

I do not know if you know this analogy but you have been 'beating a dead horse' for way too long.

Mma works because it is trained with more integrity and accountability. That is pretty much the secret sauce there. And when you see other arts start to train in that manner they get better.

That Geoff Thornton video touches on that. As soon as those Krav guys started training with integrity they got better dramatically.

If we were to compare this good and bad video proof theory you have it just doesn't work. There is consistently good video proof from reputable instructors in evidence based styles.

There is consistently bad video proof in faith based styles like self defense. And that bad video is supported with bad anecdotal and bad hypothesis.

I see no reason to have to delicately tip toe around the inflated egos of people just because their training is geared towards that.

I see no reason to support systems that are designed to hide truth from fiction.

I don't love my style. Integrity and accountability just achieves better results.

 

[drop bear]

Well, for starters, try the actual name of the base art I teach (Nihon Goshin Aikido, which isn't the same system). And then try discussing my actual curriculum, which is actually less aiki than any I'm aware of. So, no, not "the real Aikido". My Aikido. Not at all the same thing. What amuses me is I've actually told you this before, as well as what some of the differences are. This amuses me, because most of those differences are because I agree with your assessment of most of the Aikido I've seen. So I do things differently.

What you're doing would be like someone ragging on MMA because boxing doesn't teach kick defenses.

My assessment on aikido is not based on a stylistic brand issue. They either train alive with integrity and accountability against quality guys or they don't.

It is a very basic concept that underlies martial arts that work.

There is no evidence you train in that manner.

Arts that don't train with integrity will still tell you that they are the different breed of hard fighting super competent whatever. Which is an easy claim to make because we will never see evidence either way.

 

[skribs]

I see no reason to have to delicately tip toe around the inflated egos of people

Considering you have the second-highest inflated ego of anyone else on this forum, I find this statement incredibly ironic.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

What you're doing would be like someone ragging on MMA because boxing doesn't teach kick defenses.

It's amazing that nobody wants to talk about when a boxer throws a cross, his whole upper body is open for a front kick. The boxing guard just doesn't cover his body at all.

Does boxers know how to deal with low roundhouse kick, foot sweep, or knee stomp? I don't think so.

 

[skribs]

There is no evidence you train in that manner.

I have no evidence that you train in that manner. Therefore, you don't train in that manner. Therefore, you are a hypocrite.

 

[skribs]

It's amazing that nobody wants to talk about when a boxer throws a cross, his whole upper body is open for a front kick. The boxing guard just doesn't cover his body at all.

This is the kind of thing I was talking about (I don't remember if it was this thread or another). MMA and other combat sport guys are so quick to point out every opening in an instruction-speed video, and yet the sport arts have the same "problems".

 

[drop bear]

Considering you have the second-highest inflated ego of anyone else on this forum, I find this statement incredibly ironic.

Not at all. I may appear that way because I am arguing real things are real and made up things are made up.

And if you are in to Crystal healing and I crush all your dreams by explaining that there is no science to it and choose almost anything else as a more viable alternative. You will assume it is arrogant because it will seem we are not arguing on equal footing.

I mean how can I just say there is no evidence it works. When you have just spent all this time explaining your expertise on chakras or something. It is incredibly arrogant.

Exept when we are separating fact from fiction. In which case unfortunately fact always has the upper hand.

 

[drop bear]

It's amazing that nobody wants to talk about when a boxer throws a cross, his whole upper body is open for a front kick. The boxing guard just doesn't cover his body at all.

Does boxers know how to deal with low roundhouse kick (or foot sweep)? I don't think so.

Because it was another GPseymor straight up off topic straw man?

 

[drop bear]

I have no evidence that you train in that manner. Therefore, you don't train in that manner. Therefore, you are a hypocrite.

So on one hand we have a poster that says I put up too many videos and one that says I don't show evidence.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Because it was another GPseymor straight up off topic straw man?

I have broken a boxer's ribs and dropped him in front of me. I have also used "knee stomp" on a boxer and make him dance. A boxer (not a MMA guy) doesn't train those kicking defense and they have no idea how to deal with it.

Boxers don't know how to deal with kick, sweep, knee stomp is just like a non-BJJ guy doesn't know ground game. There is no difference there.