Aikido.. The reality?

[JowGaWolf]

This is why to use kick to replace that full step footwork make sense.

This is why I don't think that first step shown in the video is as big as shown if used in application

 

[drop bear]

I don't expect you to believe it. But claiming you don't believe it because no evidence, then choosing to believe the opposite without evidence is just plain dishonest. You're lying about your reason for choosing that belief. You choose it because you're triggered buy the word "Aikido", and really, really, reeally want it to be bad in all the ways you want it to be.

I am triggered by the idea that Aikido works. But just when we are not looking. And all the stuff we are looking at doesn't count because of this different stuff. That you can't see.

For someone not heavily invested that is a pretty silly stance.

The bait and switch that I was discussing earlier.

I provided evidence of where Aikido fails. You haven't provided evidence of where it succeeds.

You are now the one saying I lie. But I have shown the video of the issues I have brought up. You can't provide an example where I lied or made something up.

You are unable to support your claims and they are not relevant untill you do.

 

[drop bear]

This is what I often mean when I say that something is intentionally taught incorrectly. If it's demonstrating a fundamental body-engagement principal then there will be a whole a lot of things that won't work in application, because it's the principal being taught and not the application.

The confusion is you are looking at the application. There is no application after that demonstration.

The end result is to be able to perform this.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I think then that if the underlying principal is the intent, then it is being taught correctly for that goal. It is perceived as incorrect if people assume it is meant to have a direct practical application as it is. If direct application is not the purpose, then there may be nothing incorrect about it.

In my mind yes and no. The only reason I say this is because I think there is application in it, Like my Jow Ga Forms that uses real strikes but the forms do not teach application. I don't think it's 100% concept drill because it has to be based on something. In Martial arts that's the application that has similar movements. If it's not based on an application then why use it in an attack, as we often see in Aikido demos.

For me I'm just not ready to say that it's "only use to explain a concept" Concepts have to be based on something applicable. This is why we don't see jump jacks and running in place in forms or Aikido Demos.

What I see in Aikido is both concept and application

 

[JowGaWolf]

The confusion is you are looking at the application. There is no application after that demonstration.

The application is seen in the demo when the Aikido Guy 1 attacks like that and Aikido Guy 2 grabs the chop.

If it's not a real application then why train a defense against it?

 

[drop bear]

The application is seen in the demo when the Aikido Guy 1 attacks like that and Aikido Guy 2 grabs the chop.

If it's not a real application then why train a defense against it?

Yeah they are training to perform a demo. As they get better they perform them faster and more fluidly with more moving parts and trickier techniques.

Go look at a grading. Their ability is judged on their ability to do demo's fluidly.

 

[Flying Crane]

In my mind yes and no. The only reason I say this is because I think there is application in it, Like my Jow Ga Forms that uses real strikes but the forms do not teach application. I don't think it's 100% concept drill because it has to be based on something. In Martial arts that's the application that has similar movements. If it's not based on an application then why use it in an attack, as we often see in Aikido demos.

For me I'm just not ready to say that it's "only use to explain a concept" Concepts have to be based on something applicable. This is why we don't see jump jacks and running in place in forms or Aikido Demos.

What I see in Aikido is both concept and application

Fair enough, and I don’t know enough about aikido to say anything with certainty. However, I do recognize the concepts and I wonder if that is what is really happening, and most people simply don’t realize what they are looking at.

 

[drop bear]

The application is seen in the demo when the Aikido Guy 1 attacks like that and Aikido Guy 2 grabs the chop.

If it's not a real application then why train a defense against it?

I am trying to find a video of this group that make these claims that they are the different Aikido. The really real aikido for the street. And they grunt and swear and wear camo pants.. and then do exactly the same prearranged demo stuff everyone else does.

But they do it to the Max.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The confusion is you are looking at the application. There is no application after that demonstration.

The end result is to be able to perform this.

I can only think that way if I don't think the technique is valid. The fact that I'm able to do similar kung fu technique in sparring makes me think it's valid. If you are correct that would mean that
1. There is no principal, because the principal is based on something that doesn't occur. Principal would have to reference something that is real if it doesn't then the principle is flawed and the defense application of it is flawed.

2. If all of Aikido works like #1 then the system is flawed and it doesn't work.

3. If the system is flawed then there no way I would think I could land that that strike. Being that I've landed a closed fist version of that technique before.

4. If #1 and #2 aren't real then #3 isn't real even though I've used similar techniques in sparring.

5. If #4 is true then I'm either a liar or my video is a liar.

So that's where I am. lol.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I am triggered by the idea that Aikido works. But just when we are not looking. And all the stuff we are looking at doesn't count because of this different stuff. That you can't see.

For someone not heavily invested that is a pretty silly stance.

The bait and switch that I was discussing earlier.

I provided evidence of where Aikido fails. You haven't provided evidence of where it succeeds.

Again, I don't do Aikido (the art you're talking about), so..............

You are now the one saying I lie. But I have shown the video of the issues I have brought up. You can't provide an example where I lied or made something up.

You're making claims aboiut what I do:

you guys don't do flow rolls

Show me ANY evidence you have to back up your assertion. Go ahead.

Yet you believe that where there is no evidence (said evidence can't exist, since it's an untrue statement), then dishonestly claim that you're just being intellectually selective by claiming I don't do things.

You are unable to support your claims and they are not relevant untill you do.

Yet, apparently, you don't mind making unsupported claims and CHOOSING to believe the opposite of my statements (rather than taking a skeptical stance, which would be intellectually honest).

I think you actually believe you're better at this than you are.

 

[drop bear]

I can only think that way if I don't think the technique is valid. The fact that I'm able to do similar kung fu technique in sparring makes me think it's valid. If you are correct that would mean that
1. There is no principal, because the principal is based on something that doesn't occur. Principal would have to reference something that is real if it doesn't then the principle is flawed and the defense application of it is flawed.

2. If all of Aikido works like #1 then the system is flawed and it doesn't work.

3. If the system is flawed then there no way I would think I could land that that strike. Being that I've landed a closed fist version of that technique before.

4. If #1 and #2 aren't real then #3 isn't real even though I've used similar techniques in sparring.

5. If #4 is true then I'm either a liar or my video is a liar.

So that's where I am. lol.

Nope you are just being mean. You have to account for all the Aikido you can't see. That works like it is supposed to.

Anyway I found the group. Rogue warriors.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In my mind yes and no. The only reason I say this is because I think there is application in it, Like my Jow Ga Forms that uses real strikes but the forms do not teach application. I don't think it's 100% concept drill because it has to be based on something. In Martial arts that's the application that has similar movements. If it's not based on an application then why use it in an attack, as we often see in Aikido demos.

For me I'm just not ready to say that it's "only use to explain a concept" Concepts have to be based on something applicable. This is why we don't see jump jacks and running in place in forms or Aikido Demos.

What I see in Aikido is both concept and application

I'd argue that some of the drills in Aikido (based on my limited experience with what mainline Aikido folks do) are movement drills, and not direct application. If I'm right about that, there are students who don't understand that. So blending drills, for instance, aren't necessarily meant to replicate the flow of combat, but to allow students to focus on a specific kind of timing and interaction of momentum that is used in a lot of Aikido's grappling. While some application can end up looking like a blending drill, it's not what I'd expect in most situations. More like the speed bag in boxing.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah they are training to perform a demo. As they get better they perform them faster and more fluidly with more moving parts and trickier techniques.

Go look at a grading. Their ability is judged on their ability to do demo's fluidly.

I believe this is absolutely true in some schools. I think some branches actually make this the primary focus - it becomes a philosophical use of movement, rather than a focus on fighting skill.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Fair enough, and I don’t know enough about aikido to say anything with certainty. However, I do recognize the concepts and I wonder if that is what is really happening, and most people simply don’t realize what they are looking at.

That's kung fu all day 24/7 , 365. It happens in other systems as well and I really think it's because most people don't try to actually use this stuff. Once you try to use it, then you start looking at it differently because the focus changes from "How do I move like that" to "How does this actually work."

I could still be wrong, because I haven't actually used it the same way it is shown in Aikido. I would need to do some sparring to work out the kinks and errors that I have. I may be able to try it with my son, as he's more of the mindset that Kung Fu techniques don't work. He usually wasn't around when I did sparring, so his reactions will be normal and more realistic to how a person may react.

 

[drop bear]

Again, I don't do Aikido (the art you're talking about), so..............

You're making claims aboiut what I do:


Show me ANY evidence you have to back up your assertion. Go ahead.

Yet you believe that where there is no evidence (said evidence can't exist, since it's an untrue statement), then dishonestly claim that you're just being intellectually selective by claiming I don't do things.

Yet, apparently, you don't mind making unsupported claims and CHOOSING to believe the opposite of my statements (rather than taking a skeptical stance, which would be intellectually honest).

I think you actually believe you're better at this than you are.

Good point I will change that statement to. There is no evidence you do flow rolls.

 

[drop bear]

I believe this is absolutely true in some schools. I think some branches actually make this the primary focus - it becomes a philosophical use of movement, rather than a focus on fighting skill.

Yeah in theory it is portal stuff. But with the Aikido movement training there is no evidence it has practical application out side it's actual application.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Good point I will change that statement to. There is no evidence you do flow rolls.

That's a fair statement.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I am trying to find a video of this group that make these claims that they are the different Aikido. The really real aikido for the street. And they grunt and swear and wear camo pants.. and then do exactly the same prearranged demo stuff everyone else does.

But they do it to the Max.

Oh no.... Not to the Max lol. Yeah sometimes I think those guys are reaching as well. I often get the feeling of "Trying to hard to validate something." Lots of explaining and no sparring against someone outside of their school. I'm always cautious of that regardless of the system. I try not to take it for more than what it is. At the most it's a possible guide to something that may or may not work or even appear often.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah in theory it is portal stuff. But with the Aikido movement training there is no evidence it has practical application out side it's actual application.

From what I know of some techniques that overlap with Ueshiba's Aikido, there is application related to that movement training. It's just not as close to the application as in other approaches, like Judo or BJJ. Those movement drills serve multiple purposes. I don't like how much emphasis I've seen on them in some Aikido schools - doesn't fit what I like - but I've found value (both as a student and as an instructor) in some similar stuff. But yeah, it's not directly related to fighting skill. It's like approaching some of the principles from a tangent. I don't really have good way to explain how they work (the training principle), unfortunately. I understand it, but haven't ever really found a good set of words to voice what I understand.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Yeah they are training to perform a demo.

Agree with you 100% there.

In Chinese wrestling, we have a move "float" that look like Aikido technique.

My student can't flip his opponent if his opponent doesn't want to. The reason is simple, he only controls his opponent's wrist joint. His opponent's elbow joint is free. Also both of his opponent's legs are free.