Aikido has no reason to prove itself!

[Jaz]

Hey Guys, please check out my video on why Rokas from the Martial Arts Journey channel got Aikido wrong. Plus, I talk about why providing video evidence of Aikido techniques working against resisting opponents, is not actually proof of Aikido. My argument is that Aikido was never intended as a combat system but for something else.

Here's the link and let me know what you think:

 

[drop bear]

What is that saying?

A good man isn't someone who can't fight. A good man is someone who can but restrains himself.

Or something like that. Probably with a picture of an eagle riding a viking.

The idea expressed in the video suggests Aikido missed the point of what they were setting out to achieve, created a whole new point that doesn't make sense and should basically own that.

 

[Urban Trekker]

My argument is that Aikido was never intended as a combat system but for something else.

If this was true, aikidoka would be the ones to know.

 

[Jaz]

If this was true, aikidoka would be the ones to know.

Unfortunately, that is the problem. A lot of Aikidoka don't know this. Morihei Ueshiba was a tough guy. Aside from his martial arts training, he had fought in the front lines of the Russo-Japanese war. It was these experiences that developed his ability to fight. Aikido seems to be more like a method for him to escape the horrors of what he had felt, seen and done during that war but still be connected to the movement of the martial arts that he was practising. Almost like abstract artists - they can paint portraits, landscapes etc but choose to paint abstract images. Ueshiba could fight...but chose to practice martial arts but in a non-combatative but philosophical and spiritual way. Thanks for the comment! What did you think of the video?

 

[JowGaWolf]

I'll have to wait to see what the Aikido guys say if they say anything. I don't train the art so I'm not comfortable with saying what an art is or what it isn't.

I'm not sure what if it ultimately matters because people are using it for health like Tai Chi for health. But you also have some that are training Tai Chi to be functional. From what I can see moving forward Aikido is having a similar split.

The truth of the matter is that Martial Arts evolve in one way or the other. If it evolves into a practical fighting system that focuses on function then it may keep it's name as Aikido or it may get a new name.

If it Evolves into something that's not about function but health, then it keep it's name or it may change into something else. There's nothing to stop it from developing into a practical system. Aikido practitioners who are interested in that will be the ones who will play a role in that.

If we want to be accurate about Aikido, then it might be best to focus on where Aikido is going, as determined by how it's practitioners train it. We'll probably discover that it's more than one thing. I'm not sure about Aikido Practitioners.

But when I train kung fu, I'm not focus on "How it is now" I'm focused on how I want it to be in the future and I train according to that. Some of the old ways will continue but new ways will also be introduced. All martial arts evolved or grew from something smaller, with each teacher adding his or her input into the system.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I have a simple question here.

Do Aikido guys train how to block a punch? Are there any video to prove that?

 

[JowGaWolf]

I have a simple question here.

Do Aikido guys train how to block a punch? Are there any video to prove that?

Yep. There are videos that show that. They block punches the same way as most people do.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Yep. There are videos that show that. They block punches the same way as most people do.

I find this clip. IMO, he gives his opponent too much free space. What do you guys think?

 

[JowGaWolf]

I find this clip. IMO, he gives his opponent too much free space. What do you guys think?

I'll answer these from a CMA perspective. It's all that I got.

Jab Defense at 0:10 I don't like. But I'm long fist so hands do not wait to intercept punch. Feet do not wait to engage opponent.

Jab Defense at 0:18 actually works, but does not have the "what next"

Parry side at :30 parries are fairly reliable, but footwork is more important. I don't like the footwork here. Parry the correct way and move the correct way.

Other stuff I'll pass on.

I train with drills this way. Did a few today. My over all thought is that the wrong type of guard is being used for the system. I think a long guard would work better for Aikido vs. jabs

 

[Hanzou]

Practitioners of the art proclaim that it is an effective form of self defense. That's part of the problem really. If it was pushed as something akin to Tai Chi or Yoga, these issues wouldn't exist.

People request video evidence because it would at least provide some proof that Aikido's self defense claims are true.

 

[isshinryuronin]

If it Evolves into something that's not about function but health, then it keep it's name or it may change into something else.

Your post takes a very reasonable position. Your quoted thought above has more or less been adopted. Tai Chi vs Tai Chi Chuan or similarly (I think) Aikido vs Aikijitsu. One can also refer to Karatedo (the way of karate including the philosophy and spiritual aspects) vs Karatejitsu (jitsu being more of an applied science sans most of the other esoteric aspects. As a karateka, I embrace both of these labels - they need not be mutually exclusive.

All martial arts evolved or grew from something smaller, with each teacher adding his or her input into the system. r

All well and good, EXCEPT, rather than "each teacher" adding input to the system, I would revise that to each master! Unless one has spent many decades dedicating their life to their art's system and understanding all its nuances and principles completely, they have no business changing it. That just potentially invites a bunch of crap to be incorporated into the system and then passed down to future generations. Too much of that has already been done in some lineages. IMO, very sad.

An instructor can teach whatever he wants in his own school, but should make clear the difference between his personal whims and the principles of the system created by those with more understanding and mastery. If he thinks he has come across an amazing new idea for the system he can run it by his 9th or 10th degree Master for approval. Anything else is irresponsible.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I would revise that to each master! Unless one has spent many decades dedicating their life to their art's system and understanding all its nuances and principles completely, they have no business changing it.

Yeah I didn't use the word master because there are very few in the martial arts world that would qualify. Lots of self appointed masters.

 

[Urban Trekker]

When someone has invested so much time and money into learning a certain thing, it's going to be difficult for them to come to grips with the fact that it was all for naught.

I know that people may cite ad populum, but if everybody but you believes a certain thing, everybody else is probably right.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

By the title of the thread, yes it does. If you claim to do something you must prove you do it, and to what degree you do it. To aikidofy it, Aikido claims to be a martial art and one for fighting, so thus needs to prove it can do it and to a accetpable degree. (disclaimer i use martial art to mean for fighting, not the spirtual etc things that go with it)

Also he seems to sit inbetween two points, as far as i can tell. The first is, technique and style doesnt matter, as if you train realstically and for results the stuff that doesnt work will filter itself out. (if you let) the other is that flipped around. (no i didnt think it through and forgot the best way to word his other point)

His opinion of aikido is dervied from as far as he can see its training is ineffective so means if anything works in it doesnt matter. (and you cant pull a appeal to authorty on him if his credtials are correct, he is a authroty on aikido) I think in the block of "aikdio working" there are only a handful of techniques that are usually applied when people "get it to work".

Compeltely unrelated to the base point, but you should applied the engineering design principles here, you set a series of criteria then start building something on it. Then you assess something on the crtieria it is given, this shows up for weapons and vehciles a lot for the military. A tank isnt bad if it meets all the crtieria given to it, but the crtieria could be bad and not reflective of what is needed. this is just some general best way to look at things advise. (that does not mean you slap a 105mm cannon on a APC and call it a "MBT")

Addendum: When i think of the second point i have identified and how to articulate it i will post a seperate post on it.

Addendum 2: Rokas is also pretty open and honest about everything he does and eleborates his thougt process so you cant knock it there.

Addendum 3: I had a brain fart and mis read some things, the points made hold true but seem rambly because of it.

 

[Steve]

Yeah I didn't use the word master because there are very few in the martial arts world that would qualify. Lots of self appointed masters.

How are you defining the term "master?" I mean, what does it take, in your opinion, to have mastered an art? I think expertise is a spectrum that ranges from competent journeyman to something like a "master". In any other complex skill set that is applied, there is a natural and predictable progression of skill from apprentice/novice to journeyman and then to master.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you that in some martial arts styles, masters are probably pretty hard to come by. But why do you think that is?

 

[Urban Trekker]

I remember a few years ago, when Sylvester Stallone was talking about an incident at house party he was hosting in his home. Steven Seagal had been publicly claiming for years that he could could kick Van Damme's ***. Both happened to be at the house party. When they both ran into each other, Van Damme offered to step outside with him, so he could back up his trash talk. Seagal didn't want any parts of Van Damme. The one man who could have proven that aikido works was too scared to do it. No, Seagal did not refuse out of some sense of avoiding unnecessary violence. He was scared of Van Damme.

 

[Hanzou]

I remember a few years ago, when Sylvester Stallone was talking about an incident at house party he was hosting in his home. Steven Seagal had been publicly claiming for years that he could could kick Van Damme's ***. Both happened to be at the house party. When they both ran into each other, Van Damme offered to step outside with him, so he could back up his trash talk. Seagal didn't want any parts of Van Damme. The one man who could have proven that aikido works was too scared to do it. No, Seagal did not refuse out of some sense of avoiding unnecessary violence. He was scared of Van Damme.

That's because Segal is and has always been a bully.

 

[Steve]

That's because Segal is and has always been a bully.

If even a fraction of the horror stories told about him are true, he is not a good guy.

 

[JowGaWolf]

How are you defining the term "master?" I mean, what does it take, in your opinion, to have mastered an art? I think expertise is a spectrum that ranges from competent journeyman to something like a "master". In any other complex skill set that is applied, there is a natural and predictable progression of skill from apprentice/novice to journeyman and then to master.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you that in some martial arts styles, masters are probably pretty hard to come by. But why do you think that is?

I'm not disagreeing with you about the quality of skill level. My definition of "Master" would be someone with high level knowledge and high skills application ability beyond drills. But that's just my view.. I've seen too many cases where that title was by someone at a much lower skill and ability level. As a result I don't look a the tile Master in the same light anymore. I place it right there with how I sometimes feel about people who have black belt.

I don't have a negative view, I just don't think the titles are accurate so I tend to just view people based on the range of knowledge and ability they have and not define them by title or rank unless it is something that needs to be done out of respect when addressing people. This way I don't have expectations and I can just accept them where they are instead getting an assumption that their knowledge and skill level match their title.

 

[Steve]

I'm not disagreeing with you about the quality of skill level. My definition of "Master" would be someone with high level knowledge and high skills application ability beyond drills. But that's just my view.. I've seen too many cases where that title was by someone at a much lower skill and ability level. As a result I don't look a the tile Master in the same light anymore. I place it right there with how I sometimes feel about people who have black belt.

I don't have a negative view, I just don't think the titles are accurate so I tend to just view people based on the range of knowledge and ability they have and not define them by title or rank unless it is something that needs to be done out of respect when addressing people. This way I don't have expectations and I can just accept them where they are instead getting an assumption that their knowledge and skill level match their title.

I think we're on the same page. But again, why do you think actual masters are so rare in martial arts? We have no shortage of people who have mastered all kinds of other complex skill sets. Carpenters, plumbers, electricians... lawyers, surgeons, pilots, professional athletes (or perhaps their coaches). So, what makes martial arts unique?