Training half of martial arts bugs me.

[drop bear]

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.

Nice to know. Not sure what that has to do with training with authenticity.

Or training all of a martial art.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Not sure what that has to do with training with authenticity.

Or training all of a martial art.

You have to develop your skill step by step before you can integrate it. MMA is the final integrated stage. Not all MA system has reached to that level of integration yet.

Even the Combat SC has integrated kick, punch, lock, and throw. The ground game still has not been fully integrated yet.

"Training 1/2 of MA" is only the intermediate step (such as a boxer does know kick). It should not be the final step.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Does average boxers know how to deal with this?

Dirty? Dishonest? We are talking about fighting here.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

I may have missed a point in that post,so if I leave something out, let me know.

First, we need disambiguation. The most common usage of "Aikido" refers to Ueshiba's art. However, it is also a recognized family of arts as designated by the Dai Niippon Buttoku-kai. In fact, Aikido Korindo is the name of the art led by the person in charge of that section of the DNBK at the time.

Now, to your thoughts. Later in his career, Ueshiba did teach that his art was about peace and not harming. That was apparently not a philosophy found in his early teaching, and his classes had a reputation for being a bit rough.

Some in other parts of the aikido world (including some in Nihon Goshin Aikido) have picked up that philosophy, but so far as I can tell it was not part of NGA originally. It certainly isn't part of my teachings.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

I think you said something I was trying to get at earlier. When I go to an Aikido school, my working assumption going in is that they train passively in the classical style (I have a hedged version of that same assumption when visiting an NGA dojo). It's a reasonable assumption until I receive better information, and it usually serves me well.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sounds kind of incestuous...

You've no idea.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It is a generic issue with self defense instruction.

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

You are the one who goes for the "real deal" claims. I just tell you how I teach. There are plenty who would argue what I teach isn't really Aikido.

What you're doing is like saying MMA is claiming to be "the real boxing".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

You've absolutely no idea what a straw man is in logical argument, do you?

 

[dvcochran]

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.

But you do see that is the rub don't you? MMA is not the Only thing that works.

 

[skribs]

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

No, you appear that way because you take the role of arbiter of all martial arts.

And because your logic is about as sound as a feather hitting a pillow in a vacuum.

 

[drop bear]

No, you appear that way because you take the role of arbiter of all martial arts.

And because your logic is about as sound as a feather hitting a pillow in a vacuum.

A because in a vacuum a feather falls as fast as a bowling ball so hits harder?

 

[drop bear]

But you do see that is the rub don't you? MMA is not the Only thing that works.

Correct TMA works. I have said this a few times. But you can't generalize TMA and then take credit for its success if you are using a completely different method.

If machida uses karate that doesn't make all karate good. You still have to train it ethically.

I mean for example bjj is taking great strides in self defense especially now with police. But that doesn't mean all self defense works.

 

[drop bear]

You've absolutely no idea what a straw man is in logical argument, do you?

Where you take a point I didn't make and argue against that rather than argue my actual point.

So say if I suggested that a style that really only includes half the details to make a technique work bugs me. You say boxing some how has no way of protecting the body when they punch so I am wrong.

Because there are not body shots in boxing or something.

But that would be a straw man.

 

[drop bear]

You are the one who goes for the "real deal" claims. I just tell you how I teach. There are plenty who would argue what I teach isn't really Aikido.

What you're doing is like saying MMA is claiming to be "the real boxing".

No I am not claiming that. You are making up straw man arguments to suit yourself. (See explanation above of what a straw man is)

Nobody knows what you teach. You have been very careful about concealing that. And so you can make any claim you want. But that is all it is a claim. It is essentially worthless without something to support it.

Now you give that claim worth because it benefits you. If people have faith then you get support. So faith is the ultimate driver in your logic.

I work on evidence so faith based claims have a lot less worth.

Richard Dawkins defined both methods where he was asked if science and faith are opposing beliefs why is a bias towards science acceptable?

 

[drop bear]

Does average boxers know how to deal with this?

Dirty? Dishonest? We are talking about fighting here.

The problem with hypothetical fights in the street is they are hypothetical. A boxer runs him over in a car. Because we are talking about fighting here.

 

[drop bear]

You have to develop your skill step by step before you can integrate it. MMA is the final integrated stage. Not all MA system has reached to that level of integration yet.

Even the Combat SC has integrated kick, punch, lock, and throw. The ground game still has not been fully integrated yet.

"Training 1/2 of MA" is only the intermediate step (such as a boxer does know kick). It should not be the final step.

No it is much more accurately described like a boxer not knowing how to punch.

 

[drop bear]

You've absolutely no idea what a straw man is in logical argument, do you?

So for example I have heard this theory from Aikido guys somewhere. That whatever throw doesn't work. He just doesn't give the energy or sort of clams up if say you are angling to grab a wrist or something.

And the solution becomes something like yeah but we have striking to compensate for that situation.

So then I ask so you are competent at striking say at Mabye a first or second fight ammy boxer competent?

And this is where things fall apart.

Instead of being the sort of aikido guy that I have found videos of actually being able to make things work. They are the sort of aikido guy who makes excuses and creates hypothetical situations.

That would be an example of faith based vs evidence based.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

No it is much more accurately described like a boxer not knowing how to punch.

You have confused me.

Do we agree that

- boxer knows how to punch.
- TKD guy knows how to kick.
- wrestler knows how to take down.
- BJJ guy knows ground game?

Where is our disagreement here?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

That would be an example of faith based vs evidence based.

If you can move back faster than I can move forward, there is no way that any of my MA technique can work on you. Does that mean my MA training is worthless? Can I prove my MA work when that happen? I can't. Will I lose faith in my MA training? I won't.

Faith base - if my opponent attacks me, I'll have chance to apply my MA skill.
Evidence base - if my opponent runs away from me, my MA skill won't work.

 

[drop bear]

You have confused me.

Do we agree that

- boxer knows how to punch.
- TKD guy knows how to kick.
- wrestler knows how to take down.
- BJJ guy knows ground game?

Where is our disagreement here?

These people know how to do their individual disciplines because they have a depth of knowledge in applying them.

Boxers don't just know how to punch.

Boxers know how to manage distance, and move, how to bait people, how to move their heads and so on.

And because they know that they punch more effectively than someone who knows how to punch.