Aikido in action

[Cynik75]

Why does anyone have to prove anything?

Did he ever make the claim his concepts are right?

These are just ideas to consider, or not - the choice is yours!

All anyone need do is prove what works for them.

1. Because without proof anyone can make any concept or statement and all of them will be valid, even the dumbest ones.
2. We can make an assumption that he do not want to spread false concepts.
3. Considerations may be flawed - so the expiriment is necessary eventually
4. Let them prove. That all what I want.

 

[O'Malley]

Wasn't he basically claiming that in that video?

Everything was street this and real fight that

Even if that was an academic study I think it is pretty poor. I mean HEMA would be what you described.

Not really. From what I understand, he's not that worried about street application. His goal is physical and mental development and, simply, he is training towards that goal within parameters that are different from what he calls "ritual fights". Among other things, the fact that they train with Japanese swords should indicate that real-world application is not necessarily their main concern.

And that is how asymmetric fights work. Not my eye poke vs your sport punch.

Which is a weird thing people fall for all the time.

That's fine. But then it is not an example of the point I responded to.

Which is understanding what would prepare someone for a real fight.

I know it's a pet peeve of yours and I mostly agree. That being said, he made no claims as to the effectiveness of his method to defend oneself in the streets.

The best way for him to prove his concepts are righ is to put them to the test.
As Rokas did.
Other way he is no more than other aikido master who talks, talks, talks and nothing more.


I am pretty sure the possibility of being attacked with the fists on the streets is much much higher than possibility of being attacked with the knife. Better for him to learn how to protect the jaw.
BTW I do not see the difference between breaking somebodys nose in "ritual combat" and breaking somebodys nose in "real fight".
Technique and damage is the same,

Same as above.

 

[Flying Crane]

4. Let them prove. That all what I want.

For the sake of curiosity, what would it take for you to be satisfied?

 

[Taiji Rebel]

1. Because without proof anyone can make any concept or statement and all of them will be valid, even the dumbest ones.
2. We can make an assumption that he do not want to spread false concepts.
3. Considerations may be flawed - so the expiriment is necessary eventually
4. Let them prove. That all what I want.

Test them yourself - that is my point.

Why are waiting for somebody else to prove something for you?

 

[Cynik75]

For the sake of curiosity, what would it take for you to be satisfied?

Aikidokas claiming that aikido works and proving this in full contact fight.
More than once. Against at least a little skilled opponents.

 

[Taiji Rebel]

Thanks for that. I think we're done here. Bye.

It was not my intention to offend anyone. I was just stating the facts sir.

Any kind of warfare creates long-lasting damage. Be that boxing matches, MMA contests, or conflicts in warzones. Just recently, I read a disturbing book by Tris Dixon on the long-term damage the sport of boxing causes. It is also a well-known fact that more soldiers have committed suicide than were killed in those original wars - of those who have survived, many are still suffering from PTSD, addictions and other mental health problems.

Hence my attraction to Aikido (The Way of Harmony) as practiced by the majority, or the flower-loving folk as Leo described them in the video with Jesse 😁

“To injure an opponent is to injure yourself. To control aggression without inflicting injury is the Art of Peace.” - O'sensei

 

[Cynik75]

Test them yourself - that is my point.

Why are waiting for somebody else to prove something for you?

1. Done long time ago. They (aikidokas) do not impressed me with their performance
2. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

 

[Flying Crane]

Aikidokas claiming that aikido works and proving this in full contact fight.
More than once. Against at least a little skilled opponents.

What kind of full contact fight?

 

[Taiji Rebel]

Aikidokas claiming that aikido works and proving this in full contact fight.
More than once. Against at least a little skilled opponents.

How are they claiming it works?

Are they saying it works in a full-contact competition fight?

This is very much against the philosophy of aikido itself and strikes me as rather odd

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Asymmetric fighting is kind of a weird one for that.

Where you should fight with better tools on better ground than the other guy. Which makes sense. Fight with an advantage if you can.

But then people get really strange. Like in the video, he is like. If you sports fight me. I will eye gouge, nut shot, bite, whatever. And therefore it will become an asymmetric fight.

I'm a big fan of asymmetric training. But the proper way to do it (IMO) is to establish different goals/victory conditions/rules of engagement for the different participants.

For example, I've expressed the opinion before that Aikido/Aikijutsu* techniques primarily make sense in the context of a swordsman being able to avoid being surprise dogpiled by a group of unarmed attackers before he can draw his sword. I didn't come up with the theory, but it helps explain a lot of Aikido/Aikijutsu techniques and tactics. The swordsman doesn't want to engage in a clinch to establish control for a wrist lock, because that enables his attackers to drag him down and prevent him from drawing the weapon which will allow him to win the fight. Instead, he wants to evade and stay at longer distances. Wristlocks aren't the goal. They're just a tool to force someone to let go if they are desperately trying to hang on to you long enough for their friends to catch up and tackle you.

So - how do we pressure test this idea? You don't do it by having two people square up to spar. You assign roles. One person has a long weapon like a training sword in their belt. Start in a semi-confined space like a ring or cage, with two unarmed attackers who get to initiate the test from within 3-4 feet of the defender. Attackers win if they can get a clinch which prevents the defender from drawing his weapon or drag him to the ground or get him pinned against the ropes/cage wall. Defender wins if he can draw his weapon and have his weapon arm free so that he could start swinging. You can make all sorts of adjustments to the basic scenario - more or fewer attackers, more or less space to operate in, attackers starting from different distances. You could even ditch the weapon and make it a simple escape drill - defender has an exit that they need to make it to, attackers need to stop them from making it to the exit. I think this might also be a context where Aikido tactics might be helpful.

I actually corresponded a little bit with Rokas back before he fully transitioned over to MMA and suggested that he try this approach to pressure testing, but I don't think he ever took my advice.

*(I reference Aikijutsu, because Aikido doesn't date back to the era of sword bearing samurai, but it was derived from Daito Ryu Aikijutsu, which does claim such a history. Although the documented history and koryu status of Daito Ryu itself is somewhat questionable, it probably derives from some older koryu art(s)).

 

[marvin8]

"In a real battle, atemi is seventy percent, technique is thirty percent." - Ueshiba

“One mark of a great soldier is that he fights on his own terms or fights not at all.” - Sun Tzu

“You win battles by knowing the enemy's timing, and using a timing which the enemy does not expect.” - Musashi

There is so much to unpack in this short Aikido video, and I have only just skimmed the surface. It will be fun to hear everyone else's thoughts on the topic. I am looking forward to reading your responses

Please respond by unpacking your own statements.

Leo Tamaki's comments on ritual fights as Alpha-male contests are also 100% accurate. This definition is one which will help you to see why competition-fighting fails to prepare anyone for the reality of everyday self-defense situations.

In your words, why does ring fighting fail to prepare you for street fighting? What evidence do you have of that?

This point has been raised before, but it seems a number of martial artists are not really clear on the difference between dojo sparring, competitive matches and violent confrontations in daily life - prearranged fights are basically simple headbutting contests between two young bucks looking to discover the alpha male.

What are the clear differences you see? How are competitive fights "prearranged?" Then what is a better method to prepare for violent confrontations?

 

[Taiji Rebel]

Please respond by unpacking your own statements.

In your words, why does ring fighting fail to prepare you for street fighting? What evidence do you have of that?


What are the clear differences you see? How are competitive fights "prearranged?" Then what is a better method to prepare for violent confrontations?

This video is there for you to contemplate as you wish - I am not here to do your thinking for you.

And there is certainly no desire on my part to enter into a headbutting contest with you either.

If your current aim is to be the alpha male of an internet forum, go for your life!

 

[marvin8]

This video is there for you to contemplate as you wish - I am not here to do your thinking for you.

I have. Like you, I am "looking forward to reading your responses."

And there is certainly no desire on my part to enter into a headbutting contest with you either.

Nor is there on mine.

If your current aim is to be the alpha male of an internet forum, go for your life!

No. My aim is to have a discussion, not make ad hominem and straw man arguments.

Now will you share your responses?

 

[Taiji Rebel]

What are the clear differences you see? How are competitive fights "prearranged?" Then what is a better method to prepare for violent confrontations?

Competitive fights are prearranged events. They have a prearranged venue, a prearranged set of rules, referees, judges, spectators, medics on hand etc, etc. All of which means you know exactly what it is you are preparing for - it is a contest with strict regulations not a violent and unexpected confrontation.

In another thread on this forum, I asked you to share your understanding and definition of a combat scenario.

Unfortunately, you never gave an answer 😢 and I wonder if would you be so kind as to do that now?

 

[Taiji Rebel]

In your words, why does ring fighting fail to prepare you for street fighting? What evidence do you have of that?

Again, it would help if you were able to make a clear definition of what you believe street fighting to be. Until you do that it will difficult to go any further 🙇‍♂️

 

[marvin8]

In another thread on this forum, I asked you to share your understanding and definition of a combat scenario.

Unfortunately, you never gave an answer 😢 and I wonder if would you be so kind as to do that now?

I did answer you. Please answer the previous simple questions first:

In your words, why does ring fighting fail to prepare you for street fighting? What evidence do you have of this?

What are the clear differences you see? Then what is a better method to prepare for violent confrontations?

 

[Taiji Rebel]

I did answer you. Please answer the previous simple questions first:

In your words, why does ring fighting fail to prepare you for street fighting? What evidence do you have of this?

What are the clear differences you see? Then what is a better method to prepare for violent confrontations?

You did not answer this question clearly. And here we are going around in circles once again. Until you give a clear solid example of a street fighting scenario we cannot take this discussion any further. The ball is entirely in your court now.

 

[drop bear]

It is difficult to follow your points here Mr. Bear - are you equating the Julius Francis KO of that little guy with a real self-defense situation?

Yes.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Are you psychic?

Or is something which happens all the time on this forum?

Happens more than it use to, but then I've been here a long time

 

[drop bear]

Not really. From what I understand, he's not that worried about street application. His goal is physical and mental development and, simply, he is training towards that goal within parameters that are different from what he calls "ritual fights". Among other things, the fact that they train with Japanese swords should indicate that real-world application is not necessarily their main concern.


I know it's a pet peeve of yours and I mostly agree. That being said, he made no claims as to the effectiveness of his method to defend oneself in the streets.


Same as above.

That would be a really strange process to make work.

So he isn't doing self defence for the sake of effective self defence. But he is using self defence as some sort of exploration of human development.

Anyway.

Another pet peeve of mine is this thing I call I don't know equals God. Where we use the gaps in evidence to support our case.

So what was there before the big bang.
I don't know.
Therefore God must exist.

Taiji Rebel is making those claims. And using that video as a basis for those claims.