Aikido.. The reality?

[drop bear104]

You may never see a head lock followed by an uppercut used in boxing, or kickboxing.

IMO, the TMA can help the boxing and kickboxing a lot. Not the other way around.

In TMA, a punch can be used to obtain a clinch. Not sure people do that in boxing or kickboxing.

It doesn't matter. If you don't understand the principles occurring in a fight then you will never have enough the back of house needed to apply your specific techniques.

And hey we are back to aikido.

 

[drop bear104]

Sure, they could mean anything. That's why we have words and question marks, so we can discuss and get the context that leads to understanding. But if you then decide whatever I say I do must be proven, it gets more than a little tedious. I say, "I like to use a heavy bag to work on that." If the reply is, "Video or I don't believe it" then there's really no way to carry on a reasonable discussion. If your reply is something like "Do you work that in combinations at the bag?" or something to clarify the meaning (because "use a heavy bag" covers a huge area of drills), then we get somewhere.

Not really. Because that just continues to support meaningless statements with more meaningless statements.

Which is the issue with arts like Aikido in the first place. Evidence is the best sales pitch. And critical thinkers are just haters.

Just layers upon layers of explanation as to why, despite any real evidence their stuff really does do what is claimed.

 

[Steve]

How did kata become part of this discussion????

it was an example of the same thing.

You're being ridiculous, Steve. If you'd actually bothered to read my previous post, I actually answered that question already. But go ahead and act sanctimonious and righteous about me not answering questions.

of course. I should just read your posts. I'll try that next time. Thanks for the constructive discussion.

 

[Kung Fu Wang104]

And hey we are back to aikido.

Assume I'm an Aikido guy. One day in the street, I threw a punch and knocked my opponent down. How can you say that my Aikido punch is not effective?

Where did I learn my Aikido punch? I learned it by standing in front of a heavy bag and punch on that bag everyday. There is no law that prevent an Aikido guy from working on his heavy bag.

 

[drop bear104]

Assume I'm an Aikido guy. One day in the street, I threw a punch and knocked my opponent down. How can you say that my Aikido punch is not effective?

Where did I learn my Aikido punch? I learned it by standing in front of a heavy bag and punch on that bag everyday. There is no law that prevent an Aikido guy from working on his heavy bag.

But what if the Aikido guy never got in to a fight in the first place. How can you say buying a black cat is bad luck?

 

[Kung Fu Wang104]

But what if the Aikido guy never got in to a fight in the first place. How can you say buying a black cat is bad luck?

Many years ago, Armando Flores and another Karate friend of mine visited me on a weekend. There was a Karate tournament in town that day. 3 of us put on the soft Karate gloves and competed in that Karate tournament. Armando beat his opponent's face all over the blood and got dis-qualified by using excessive force. A week later he was kicked out of his Aikido association.

Aikido guy can fight if he wants too.

 

[drop bear104]

Many years ago, Armando Flores and another Karate friend of mine visited me on a weekend. There was a Karate tournament in town that day. 3 of us put on the soft Karate gloves and competed in that Karate tournament. Armando beat his opponent's face all over the blood and got dis-qualified by using excessive force. A week later he was kicked out of his Aikido association.

Aikido guy can fight if he wants too.

Oscar Isac got in to a fight with ten bikers and beat all of them.

He can fight if he wants to.

Just curious. But what does all this have to do with what I posted?

 

[Gerry Seymour11]

Not really. Because that just continues to support meaningless statements with more meaningless statements.

Which is the issue with arts like Aikido in the first place. Evidence is the best sales . And critical thinkers are just haters.

Just layers upon layers of explanation as to why, despite any real evidence their stuff really does do what is claimed.

Okay, so nobody need ever bother to mention anything they do in their training. Apparently all of it is meaningless in discussions without video of it. Got it.

 

[Gerry Seymour11]

it was an example of the same thing.

same as what?

of course. I should just read your posts. I'll try that next time. Thanks for the constructive discussion.

Happy to help. Surprised you hadn't already thought of reading something before commenting on it.

 

[Kung Fu Wang104]

Just curious. But what does all this have to do with what I posted?

All MA systems can be used as an effective fighting system if a person knows how. I have seen an Aikido guy did the best Karate roundhouse kick by kicking with his instep.

If people think that Aikido is not an effective fighting system, may be the person just doesn't know how to make it effective.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Ok here's another Aikido Basics Video

Out of all of the ones I've seen so far I like this one the most. It has the "Aikido chop" in it (15:38). So what I'm getting from this video is that the chop is being used as a training tool, for learning how to get the correct angle on receiving the "Chop Attack") From what I saw in this video. The upward motion towards the chop is similar to a technique done in Jow Ga, but I may be just reading to much into it. But here's what I'm getting from it. When the strike comes in, you want to meet the force at an angle. The angle slows down the strike an redirects if. If you do not slow down the strike then the strike will continue on it's path. That is the concept.

So I used the same Aikido Concept and applied it to a strike. punch. The punch comes in. I engage the linear strike (with my opposite hand) at an angle, which means you have to do this before the punch is straight. This creates a grinding motion that slows the punch because you can't grab the arm unless you do this. Once you get that friction, quickly send your force on a circular path which will push the punch away from your center. (I probably need to put some more detail into the description). When I did this. If felt like one of the techniques that I use in kung fu. The biggest difference is that I'm trying to blend so can crab the arm. In Jow ga, we strike the arm to cause damage and snake around the punch.

I didn't think of this until he used the sword to explain it. I could be wrong but I think this is the correct way and that it can be applied to straight punches.

I still don't like the stances thought. But when I stand like that I naturally want step off to the right at 45 degree angle and immediately want to raise my rear hand in order to redirect the straight punch so I can prevent it from hitting me. That may be my kung fu mindset telling me to do that. Only way to know is to have one of the Aikido guys try it.

The thing that makes me think this is correct is how he uses his forearm (15:38) which sets up a safer grab with higher probability than just trying to snatch stuff out of the air.

 

[drop bear104]

Okay, so nobody need ever bother to mention anything they do in their training. Apparently all of it is meaningless in discussions without video of it. Got it.

It just depends if you want to treat martial arts as a science or a belief system.

I am sure no touch guys can support their method with more method. I am sure there are books of explanation out there.

What they can't do is get a random person and make that method work.

 

[drop bear104]

All MA systems can be used as an effective fighting system if a person knows how. I have seen an Aikido guy did the best Karate roundhouse kick by kicking with his instep.

If people think that Aikido is not an effective fighting system, may be the person just doesn't know how to make it effective.

No they can't. You can't do any random thing and achieve the same results.

Here is a piece of advice that Mabye I think is self explanatory. So I haven't bothered pointing this out.

If you want to get better at something you really need to train in a way that makes you better at that thing.

You don't just train a random thing and then try to figure out how to make that training any to the task you are trying to be good at.

 

[Steve]

same as what? Happy to help. Surprised you hadn't already thought of reading something before commenting on it.

Okay. I don't even know how to respond to this. I hope you have a good day. It's too beautiful outside to mess with your irrational hostility. I honestly don't even know what your point of contention is, at this point. You're clearly upset, but for the life of me, I don't know why.

 

[drop bear104]

All MA systems can be used as an effective fighting system if a person knows how. I have seen an Aikido guy did the best Karate roundhouse kick by kicking with his instep.

If people think that Aikido is not an effective fighting system, may be the person just doesn't know how to make it effective.

And by the way. How does that make learning to kickbox and then learning to jow gar once fighting is understood.

Or learning to wrestle and then learning to Aikido once grappling is understood.

An incorrect statement.

You need to understand the back of house effort that made this Aikido guys kick so good. Otherwise you see this Aikido guy fire off the killer kick. Go do Aikido, and in ten years find out you can't do that kick. And then get told it is you and not the system.

 

[BrendanF]

You need to understand the back of house effort that made this Aikido guys kick so good. Otherwise you see this Aikido guy fire off the killer kick. Go do Aikido, and in ten years find out you can't do that kick. And then get told it is you and not the system.

Is it not you?

 

[Kung Fu Wang104]

You don't just train a random thing and then try to figure out how to make that training any to the task you are trying to be good at.

The following story is 100% true.

A guy wanted to compete in a Kung Fu tournament in Taiwan. He didn't have teacher and didn't have training partner. He found a coconut shell, drew 2 holes, used 2 ropes and attached to 2 trees. Everyday he just punched on that coconut while it bounced back and forth between 2 trees. many months later, he competed in Kung Fu tournament and won the 1st place. Nobody could escape his head hunting.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I think you guys guys are on the same page but are maybe not seeing it. I'm only saying this because I've been putting a bunch of likes and agrees on a lot of comments. Alot of what I'm seeing are things that apply sometimes and not all the time. So Drop Bear will say something that is true, but not true all the time. Then Kung Fu Wang will say something true, but not true all the time and GpSeymour will say something true but not true all the time.

For example: I can go learn how to punch correctly on a punching bag and there is a possibility that I'll be able to use that punch in a fight. A lot of people actually fight this way. They copy what they see and then try to reproduce how they see others fight. This usually occurs with the most basics of strike. The easier it is to do the strike the more likely it will be done in a fight.

Here's an example. Drunken Kung Fu vs Karate. The video shows a martial artist trying to fight like one would do the form. This is what we see on TV. The Druken Boxing techniques that I know aren't like this. They aren't sloppy and the application of the techniques never looks like in the video. I've been drunk before and I don't know anyone who gets drunk in moves around like this, so right off the back we see someone copying what they see and trying to apply it in a fight. If they can do it with silly stuff like this then they can easily do it with basic kicks and punches. So in that light Kung fu Wang is correct. But it's always the case.

Drop Bear is also correct. About experiencing what it's like to be punched, kicked, and trying to kick and punch in the context of sparring. There are certain things that happen in sparring that puts training into context. Sparring gives a good visual and basic understanding of how attacks come in and out, and how defenses are deployed. If you take that information and use that as the "sample attack" or "sample defense" in which a technique must be functional with or against, then you should be able to better understand what you are training and how it actually applies. This is also correct and it's exactly what I've been using to "decode Aikido" After watching the video and the explanation of what was going on with the chop it became clear. But only because the teacher in the video showed how he was using his forearm. Using that forearm made sense to me because of my experience of using something similar in sparring. Without sparring, I would have never been able to make that connection (right or wrong). I also know that other systems use the same method of trying to interfere or slow down a punch by using the forearms (universal truths).

Now when you what Aikido practitioners counter that "Aikido chop" watch if they use their forearms or if they just grab the wrist out of mid air. Then when you watch Akido sparring vs ???, watch for the same thing. Do they just try to grab the punch out of the air or do they use the fore arm to do so. But with all of that said. The only way a person would even think this way is through the experience of having done something similar. When you watch other Aikido practitioners talk about dealing with the "Aikido Chop" they never mention using the forearm or discuss why you need to use the forearm. So experience sparring or fighting makes a difference.

 

[Steve]

Is it not you?

What if it's your lack of kickboxing training?

 

[BrendanF]

What if it's your lack of kickboxing training?

Well it's going to be a lack of something, right? No one is arguing that a roundhouse kick is in any orthodox aikido curricula. But I'd bet that the 'aikido' gent KFWang mentioned had practiced said kick before. Was that 'kickboxing' training? Who knows - what we do know is that Wang laoshi was impressed by the kick.

I think these discussions are interesting. I've always viewed aikido as a fairly idiosyncratic art. I think it is Ueshiba's distillation of Takeda's improvised, nostalgic nod to times past. I believe Aikido (and DR before it) were products as much of their creators' interest in and promotion of 'old school samurai ethos' and 'yamato damashii' (and themselves) as they were exercises in genuine combat training.

In other words, the unique approaches shown to fighting in aikido are a reflection of a cultural claim, not a martial one. That students in a nationalist pre-war Japan would 'tank' for an esteemed teacher who was imparting these cultural traits and claims is entirely in line with the society the art was born in.

Ultimately, I don't think aikido was designed for 'fighting'. I think it was created and proliferated as a cultural exercise. So being critical of it as 'fight training' is kinda like being critical of a Ferrarri for it's lack of towing capacity.

There are of course experts who view it differently, and feel like Ueshiba and Takeda had a special 'aiki' type of conditioning which made them exceptional fighters. While I'm aware of the skills some 'neijia' practitioners possess, I remain unconvinced of that theory.