Aikido.. The reality?

[Steve]

Ahh. Why didn't I see it before? That wrist lock worked in a dynamic situation because of institutional authority. Now don't I feel silly.

You don't see how?

Haha. Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument when you know you're always right.

A wise warning for us all, I think.

There is no one on earth that argues against BJJ being effective in many situations. Aikido is effective in fewer situations.

I'll take your word for it.

That is not a reason dismiss an entire skill set or art form. If you don't find personal value with it, don't study it. No one will twist your arm (see what I did there?) and make you learn aikido.

If you think I'm dismissing an entire skill set, you're completely off base. I'm critical of training models. Though, where the identity and culture of a style is intentionally muddled with the training model, it gets a little mushy.

I think it's great if Aikido works for you as a cop. I'm really only pointing out that the lessons learned aren't all that useful to anyone who isn't a cop (in my opinion).

I have used BJJ skills and aikido skills in many situations. Both have value for me... it's not 1 or the other.

Cool. Like what?

 

[jobo]

there a

And that the words are spelled differently doesn't mean they never overlap in meaning or usage.

there very few interchangeable words in english , can they over lap? only if your not aware of the subtle differance between them, otherwise it's clear which is appropriate

are there people in the world that dont know the differance between sonething being demonstrated and some thing being exhibited? clearly

I can only help them one at a time

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I can only help them one at a time

If only there was help for you.

 

[drop bear]

what does it claim ?

That the people who are considered experts can perform the system they teach on resisting opponent's.

Good boxers can out punch bad boxers.

Good grappler can throw bad grapplers on the ground.

And we can easily identify these people because through competition we have a stat block to see who is good and who isn't.

So say for example when Lachlan guiles claims he has a leg lock system and then leg locks everyone. We can assume his system has some merit.

When Barry Aikido claims he can Aikido some guy. And that is the end of that. We can't assume he can do that thing.

 

[jobo]

That the people who are considered experts can perform the system they teach on resisting opponent's.

Good boxers can out punch bad boxers.

Good grappler can throw bad grapplers on the ground.

And we can easily identify these people because through competition we have a stat block to see who is good and who isn't.

can you show me where your system claims any of those things

be honest you've just made those up havent you

 

[drop bear]

can you show me where your system claims any of those things

be honest you've just made those up havent you

You just read the post where I claimed that.

 

[jobo]

You just read the post where I claimed that.

no you said your system claims,,, your not the system are you, you not even a particularly good exponent of the system

 

[drop bear]

no you said your system claims,,, your not the system are you, you not even a particularly good exponent of the system

Oh. Semantics.

 

[Shatteredzen]

While I hate discussing work, my hope is you will take a 1st hand account over internet click bait focused media commentary.
Yes. Many people comply rather than resist. We call those people compliant... meaning that NO force is required. Force (when used appropriately) is Only for resistant+ people... and no, my anecdote was not about wrist locking restrained individuals. I was referring to taking resistant individuals safely to the ground with a wrist lock, that can then be transitioned into safe restraint.
We all believe what we want. As my parents would say, "A man whose mind is changed against his will, is of the same opinion still".

Let me save you some time, the guys you are talking with, specifically Hanzou and Martial D, are not here for an actual conversation about Aikido, they are here to berate anyone who isn't foaming at the mouth about how ineffective it is. Despite having little to no real world experience, and zero actual knowledge of Aikido, they will simply present themselves as authorities on the subject and loudly draw inferences to things they have watched videos of in MMA and BJJ. It comes down to them wanting to speak from a false position of experience or wisdom in front of a crowd. Even if you give them a good natured argument they will simply ignore your points and/or change the subject to try and argue a different point or to try to make you argue against a false premise.

 

[Martial D]

Let me save you some time, the guys you are talking with, specifically Hanzou and Martial D, are not here for an actual conversation about Aikido, they are here to berate anyone who isn't foaming at the mouth about how ineffective it is. Despite having little to no real world experience, and zero actual knowledge of Aikido, they will simply present themselves as authorities on the subject and loudly draw inferences to things they have watched videos of in MMA and BJJ. It comes down to them wanting to speak from a false position of experience or wisdom in front of a crowd. Even if you give them a good natured argument they will simply ignore your points and/or change the subject to try and argue a different point or to try to make you argue against a false premise.

That's a very creative, if not overly salty interpretation of events.i can see why you'd prefer people not read the actual exchanges though.

 

[drop bear]

Let me save you some time, the guys you are talking with, specifically Hanzou and Martial D, are not here for an actual conversation about Aikido, they are here to berate anyone who isn't foaming at the mouth about how ineffective it is. Despite having little to no real world experience, and zero actual knowledge of Aikido, they will simply present themselves as authorities on the subject and loudly draw inferences to things they have watched videos of in MMA and BJJ. It comes down to them wanting to speak from a false position of experience or wisdom in front of a crowd. Even if you give them a good natured argument they will simply ignore your points and/or change the subject to try and argue a different point or to try to make you argue against a false premise.

It would be easier if there were Aikido guys that we could point to as any good and who are out there doing their thing I think.

I mean even the local MMA or BJJ guy is probably pretty reputable with some sort of visible record of achievement. You can even see these guys in video on the mats mixing it up with everyone.

Where with Aikido it all seems to occur behind some sort of veil. There is street success but you have to trust me. There is stories of the founder but he isn't around. There is promises that these systems work but it is really mostly demo's.

Even the anecdotal seems a bit thin. Like there are instructors I think are good because I have rolled or wrestled or boxed them that may not have massive fight records. But those guys are open to people walking in and trying that. Which I have never really heard of in Aikido.

So when you train in this obvious as to who is good and who isn't environment. It is very hard to be convinced by a person who does not exist in that environment.

We want to see good. Because we are used to seeing it. Rather than be assured good and hope that it is true

 

[Shatteredzen]

It would be easier if there were Aikido guys that we could point to as any good and who are out there doing their thing I think.

I mean even the local MMA or BJJ guy is probably pretty reputable with some sort of visible record of achievement. You can even see these guys in video on the mats mixing it up with everyone.

Where with Aikido it all seems to occur behind some sort of veil. There is street success but you have to trust me. There is stories of the founder but he isn't around. There is promises that these systems work but it is really mostly demo's.

Even the anecdotal seems a bit thin. Like there are instructors I think are good because I have rolled or wrestled or boxed them that may not have massive fight records. But those guys are open to people walking in and trying that. Which I have never really heard of in Aikido.

So when you train in this obvious as to who is good and who isn't environment. It is very hard to be convinced by a person who does not exist in that environment.

We want to see good. Because we are used to seeing it. Rather than be assured good and hope that it is true

I agree that Aikido needs to adopt this approach to be viewed as practical. The veil is just that, its a smoke screen. A good school would be trying to have you apply the techniques against resistive partners and would be open to working/rolling with other styles. My teacher and I had the same problem, we would visit reputable Aikido schools in Japan while we were there, they would have excellent technique but they wouldn't practice with resistance or against combative opponents. We got one school to let us spar with them but they stipulated it had to be uke/nage (Aikido throws) only.

My overall point is that there is value in the system, if not the current crop of schools. I don't mind calling the current base of students and instructors on the carpet, I don't know how we get Aikido out of its current state without that, my contention is hearing people claim there is nothing there underneath the years of flotsam that has built up. Aikido might have farther to dig than the rest of the TMA because of its post war re-branding, but that fact is not the same as comparing it to yoga or tai chi. In the way it is being practiced without resistance I can see where you get the argument, but I have seen enough of its under the hood mechanics and used them enough that I know there is a martial art in there that I believe is worth salvaging.

I'd be much happier with stating the reality of Aikido in this manner, that it must rise to the modern standard of practical training and open itself to competitive scrutiny. Rather than this attempt to relegate it to an exercise regime by people who have not trained it. Especially in the case of LEO's or bouncers or anyone who wants to be able to de-escalate or stop a violent encounter without the only option being to respond with equal or more force, I think the effort is worth it in Aikido's case.

 

[drop bear]

I agree that Aikido needs to adopt this approach to be viewed as practical. The veil is just that, its a smoke screen. A good school would be trying to have you apply the techniques against resistive partners and would be open to working/rolling with other styles. My teacher and I had the same problem, we would visit reputable Aikido schools in Japan while we were there, they would have excellent technique but they wouldn't practice with resistance or against combative opponents. We got one school to let us spar with them but they stipulated it had to be uke/nage (Aikido throws) only.

My overall point is that there is value in the system, if not the current crop of schools. I don't mind calling the current base of students and instructors on the carpet, I don't know how we get Aikido out of its current state without that, my contention is hearing people claim there is nothing there underneath the years of flotsam that has built up. Aikido might have farther to dig than the rest of the TMA because of its post war re-branding, but that fact is not the same as comparing it to yoga or tai chi. In the way it is being practiced without resistance I can see where you get the argument, but I have seen enough of its under the hood mechanics and used them enough that I know there is a martial art in there that I believe is worth salvaging.

I'd be much happier with stating the reality of Aikido in this manner, that it must rise to the modern standard of practical training and open itself to competitive scrutiny. Rather than this attempt to relegate it to an exercise regime by people who have not trained it. Especially in the case of LEO's or bouncers or anyone who wants to be able to de-escalate or stop a violent encounter without the only option being to respond with equal or more force, I think the effort is worth it in Aikido's case.

But then that is Aikidos job to go out and do.

Not people's job to accept it on face value.

Especially as this outlook becomes like a pyramid scheme. You keep getting lead along by this guy who is making it work somewhere and so you keep investing.

You don't want to look like a duche so you never let on that you suck. And so you get all these people in a room feeling like if they pretend hard enough then they will eventually achieve the results for real that they keep getting sold.

And most of us have gone through this in one form or another. Which is why the systems that perpetuate this are so frown upon.

 

[Shatteredzen]

But then that is Aikidos job to go out and do.

Not people's job to accept it on face value.

Especially as this outlook becomes like a pyramid scheme. You keep getting lead along by this guy who is making it work somewhere and so you keep investing.

You don't want to look like a duche so you never let on that you suck. And so you get all these people in a room feeling like if they pretend hard enough then they will eventually achieve the results for real that they keep getting sold.

And most of us have gone through this in one form or another. Which is why the systems that perpetuate this are so frown upon.

Which is why we should call out the behavior over the system, that behavior exists everywhere in the MA community and yes there ARE plenty of bad BJJ and MMA gyms that are just as McDojo as anything else.

 

[Steve]

I agree that Aikido needs to adopt this approach to be viewed as practical. The veil is just that, its a smoke screen. A good school would be trying to have you apply the techniques against resistive partners and would be open to working/rolling with other styles. My teacher and I had the same problem, we would visit reputable Aikido schools in Japan while we were there, they would have excellent technique but they wouldn't practice with resistance or against combative opponents. We got one school to let us spar with them but they stipulated it had to be uke/nage (Aikido throws) only.

My overall point is that there is value in the system, if not the current crop of schools. I don't mind calling the current base of students and instructors on the carpet, I don't know how we get Aikido out of its current state without that, my contention is hearing people claim there is nothing there underneath the years of flotsam that has built up. Aikido might have farther to dig than the rest of the TMA because of its post war re-branding, but that fact is not the same as comparing it to yoga or tai chi. In the way it is being practiced without resistance I can see where you get the argument, but I have seen enough of its under the hood mechanics and used them enough that I know there is a martial art in there that I believe is worth salvaging.

I'd be much happier with stating the reality of Aikido in this manner, that it must rise to the modern standard of practical training and open itself to competitive scrutiny. Rather than this attempt to relegate it to an exercise regime by people who have not trained it. Especially in the case of LEO's or bouncers or anyone who wants to be able to de-escalate or stop a violent encounter without the only option being to respond with equal or more force, I think the effort is worth it in Aikido's case.

You bring up LEO and bouncers. When we do hear about Aikido working, it's usually a LEO or a bouncer referencing the use of Aikido techniques to subdue or control someone.

Two things here. First, we have no reason to doubt that these techniques work.

However, second, we need to be careful using a very small subset of techniques that are practical to validate an entire system that is (or may be) impractical.

For example, let's accept for the moment that this technique works and is very useful and practical for a LEO or bouncer (it may or may not be... just for the sake of argument, let's say it is demonstrably effective):

That does not validate this:

My point isn't that Aikido is or isn't useful. Rather, my point is simply that application makes it very clear what is practical and what is impractical. We need to be careful not to mix the two up by using the former to validate the latter.

 

[Hanzou]

Which is why we should call out the behavior over the system, that behavior exists everywhere in the MA community and yes there ARE plenty of bad BJJ and MMA gyms that are just as McDojo as anything else.

Could you point to an example of what you would consider a bad Bjj gym?

 

[Shatteredzen]

You bring up LEO and bouncers. When we do hear about Aikido working, it's usually a LEO or a bouncer referencing the use of Aikido techniques to subdue or control someone.

Two things here. First, we have no reason to doubt that these techniques work.

However, second, we need to be careful using a very small subset of techniques that are practical to validate an entire system that is (or may be) impractical.

For example, let's accept for the moment that this technique works and is very useful and practical for a LEO or bouncer (it may or may not be... just for the sake of argument, let's say it is demonstrably effective):

That does not validate this:

My point isn't that Aikido is or isn't useful. Rather, my point is simply that application makes it very clear what is practical and what is impractical. We need to be careful not to mix the two up by using the former to validate the latter.

I am not saying that traditional uke/nage is a validation. What you see in Uke/Nage is not itself a validation or invalidation, it is a training method. I think on its own it leads to bad habits, but it has practical uses for judging form and demonstrating or even practicing timing and flow. The point that Aikido is not useful has been argued multiple times in this thread, hence my statement, not that you had argued this.

What is practical and impractical in Aikido has very much to do with how it is taught and trained, we see the stereotypical kote gaishi attempt to counter the jab because it is getting taught that way and perpetuated by a lack of resistive training. The Aikido counter to the jab is actually space, not a kote gaishi, the kote gaishi is supposed to counter a grab to the gi or wrist. So now we have to talk about entering and exiting the opponents circle of influence, breaking the line of the opponents movement, etc, to really start to see all of the things that go into one of these techniques and what makes up the Aikido rather than just the one off situational "move" that you are wondering about. Are these things being taught in Aikido schools? I don't know that they are, or if they are, if they are getting the appropriate emphasis above and beyond the individual techniques and the pretty dancing.

So does this mean Aikido is impractical because we have a bunch of Aikido guys trying to kote gaishi off a jab? No, those students shouldn't have been taught things like that and what would have fixed it is attempting to apply it against a resisting opponent. I'm not blaming the student so much as the understanding of the system by the instructor base. This is further complicated by what was done to the system post world war 2. I am a fan of resurrecting the old style of Aikido and doing the work to update it to this post MMA/BJJ world we live in.

 

[drop bear]

Which is why we should call out the behavior over the system, that behavior exists everywhere in the MA community and yes there ARE plenty of bad BJJ and MMA gyms that are just as McDojo as anything else.

Sort of. I would praise the outliers in this particular case.

Just because there is so much that is either bad or just hidden so we don't know.

 

[Shatteredzen]

Could you point to an example of what you would consider a bad Bjj gym?

I'm not going to name anyone specifically but the central valley here in CA is full of them. Granted they usually brand as MMA over BJJ but if you want some examples of what makes them garbage there's almost a formula for it.

Strip mall MMA school with one or two instructors, one guy runs the business and the other one is some washed out local fighter with maybe half a dozen no name but technically "ranked" fights at bars and local festivals. Both guys pay annual dues to an instructors only school with a more legit training background to "wash" their credentials and make it look like they come from a solid BJJ school. There are maybe half a dozen of these within fifteen minutes of my house, they are packed full of students paying to get lessons from dudes who learned BJJ watching UFC and youtube.

 

[drop bear]

I'm not going to name anyone specifically but the central valley here in CA is full of them. Granted they usually brand as MMA over BJJ but if you want some examples of what makes them garbage there's almost a formula for it.

Strip mall MMA school with one or two instructors, one guy runs the business and the other one is some washed out local fighter with maybe half a dozen no name but technically "ranked" fights at bars and local festivals. Both guys pay annual dues to an instructors only school with a more legit training background to "wash" their credentials and make it look like they come from a solid BJJ school. There are maybe half a dozen of these within fifteen minutes of my house, they are packed full of students paying to get lessons from dudes who learned BJJ watching UFC and youtube.

Would your washed up ammy have more under the hood than your average 20 year veteran in some systems?