Are competitive Sport Martial Artists superior?

[O'Malley]

Where? When?

Aikido Maki-no-Ichi - O-Sensei's First Book on Aikido

PDF format downloadable copy of "Aikido Maki-no-Ichi", the first book on Aikido ever published by Aikido Founder Morihei Ueshiba.

www.google.com

Ueshiba-ha Daito-ryu Aiki-jujutsu - Aikido Sangenkai Blog

Was Aikido the unique and original creation of Morihei Ueshiba? Or is there a greater debt owed to Sokaku Takeda and Daito-ryu Aiki-jujutsu?

www.aikidosangenkai.org

The Ueshiba Legacy, by Mark Murray - Aikido Sangenkai Blog

Part 1 of Mark Murray's essay on the two legacies of Aikido - that of Morihei Ueshiba and that of his son, Kisshomaru Ueshiba.

www.aikidosangenkai.org

The thread is about competition, useful or not. I think for Tomiki students it's good. AIKI KI ...is not for fighting.

FWIW I agree that competition is useful.

I would hardly consider any of those sources to be objective.

Ignoring facts does not make them disappear.

 

[caped crusader]

Aikido Maki-no-Ichi - O-Sensei's First Book on Aikido

PDF format downloadable copy of "Aikido Maki-no-Ichi", the first book on Aikido ever published by Aikido Founder Morihei Ueshiba.

www.google.com

Ueshiba-ha Daito-ryu Aiki-jujutsu - Aikido Sangenkai Blog

Was Aikido the unique and original creation of Morihei Ueshiba? Or is there a greater debt owed to Sokaku Takeda and Daito-ryu Aiki-jujutsu?

www.aikidosangenkai.org

The Ueshiba Legacy, by Mark Murray - Aikido Sangenkai Blog

Part 1 of Mark Murray's essay on the two legacies of Aikido - that of Morihei Ueshiba and that of his son, Kisshomaru Ueshiba.

www.aikidosangenkai.org

FWIW I agree that competition is useful.

Ignoring facts does not make them disappear.

Without turning this into an aikido thread, his later aikido Was not Daito ryu. He changed it because of his Religion, spirituel beliefs. The last Part of Daito ryu influence Was his Aiki budo with Saito in Iwama. After WW2 it changed. Even in 1935 as shown in the video...it's questionable if this is any real use.

 

[Hanzou]

Ignoring facts does not make them disappear.

Ueshiba's students and friends saying he was great is a fact. Saying that we can base his fighting prowess purely on those accounts is not a fact. Basing someone's fighting ability on the opinions of their friends and students is not objective. It's like the story Chuck Norris tells of Helio Gracie choking him out instantly before he knew what happened. Yeah, that's a cool story, but it isn't objective, it's just a story, and there's clearly some embellishment going on in the way Norris relays the events.

Royce Gracie soundly beating people much larger than him in multiple NHB bouts wearing karate pajamas is objective, because we can ALL see what's happening.

 

[caped crusader]

Ueshiba's students and friends saying he was great is a fact. Saying that we can base his fighting prowess purely on those accounts is not a fact.

well end of the day the KI better be strong in a bar brawl...

I think you are better with Saito...LOL

 

[caped crusader]

sparring/sport contact karate will 100% help if you´re into this karate..Kyokushin

 

[O'Malley]

Without turning this into an aikido thread, his later aikido Was not Daito ryu. He changed it because of his Religion, spirituel beliefs. The last Part of Daito ryu influence Was his Aiki budo with Saito in Iwama. After WW2 it changed. Even in 1935 as shown in the video...it's questionable if this is any real use.

He never changed the techniques because of his spiritual beliefs, and the documents from that time (as well as several testimonies from people who were there) contradict that claim. He delivered Daito ryu certificates after the war and the 1955 Maki no Ichi aikido manual contained the same technical information as the 1935 (Daito ryu) Budo manual. He stayed with Saito in Iwama until his death and Saito explicitly said that they kept doing techniques according to the 1935 Budo manual. The third Doshu, Moriteru Ueshiba, said that the techniques were changed by Kisshomaru Ueshiba, not Morihei:

“The techniques and way of Aikido that the founder O-Sensei left us, was not always easily understood by everyone. Doshu, my father, changed these so they would be easily understood, and he gave all of his life to spread this. For that reason he left behind many books that he had written. I grew up watching Doshu return from keiko to study and write for long hours and even with my child’s eyes I could see the importance of this work”.
Source: Moriteru Ueshiba, "To the spirit of the past Doshu", Aikikai Hombu Dojo Aikido Shimbun, January 1999.

Ueshiba's students and friends saying he was great is a fact. Saying that we can base his fighting prowess purely on those accounts is not a fact. Basing someone's fighting ability on the opinions of their friends and students is not objective. It's like the story Chuck Norris tells of Helio Gracie choking him out instantly before he knew what happened. Yeah, that's a cool story, but it isn't objective, it's just a story, and there's clearly some embellishment going on in the way Norris relays the events.

Royce Gracie soundly beating people much larger than him in multiple NHB bouts wearing karate pajamas is objective, because we can ALL see what's happening.

Royce Gracie did this during one of the first inter-styles matches that were sanctionated and filmed. Expecting the same standard of proof from someone who died decades earlier is laughable. Absent video "proof" (whose validity is debatable...) we turn to documented facts (e.g. the fact that Kano sent several of his best students to study with Ueshiba, or the fact that a world-class judo athlete like Abbe studied and taught aikido after meeting Ueshiba) and testimonies from contemporaries. That's how historians study the past, and there's no reason why martial arts should be an exception.

A single anecdote (like the Norris one) is very different from consistent statements from every top martial artist at the time about Ueshiba's overall level. Talking about objectivity, Minoru Mochizuki had no problem saying that his daito ryu techniques were not sufficient to beat wrestlers, or that savate was superior to karate. Yet, he also said that nobody could beat Ueshiba when they trained together, despite Mochizuki being 24 years younger and an outstanding competitor by all accounts.

 

[Hanzou]

well end of the day the KI better be strong in a bar brawl...

I think you are better with Saito...LOL

Hmmm. Out of respect, I'll make no comment.

 

[caped crusader]

Anyway Buddy if you like it do it. Watch a Daito Ryu video. It´s not the same and he did change it because of his Omoto religion.

He never changed the techniques because of his spiritual beliefs

How War and Religion Shaped Modern Aikido, Part I by Stanley Pranin – Aikido Journal

aikidojournal.com

 

[Steve]

sparring/sport contact karate will 100% help if you´re into this karate..Kyokushin

Badass.

 

[caped crusader]

Morihei Ueshiba and Onisaburo Deguchi – Aikido Journal

aikidojournal.com

 

[caped crusader]

Badass.

yeah...whooped his *** !!!

 

[Hanzou]

Royce Gracie did this during one of the first inter-styles matches that were sanctionated and filmed. Expecting the same standard of proof from someone who died decades earlier is laughable. Absent video "proof" (whose validity is debatable...) we turn to documented facts (e.g. the fact that Kano sent several of his best students to study with Ueshiba, or the fact that a world-class judo athlete like Abbe studied and taught aikido after meeting Ueshiba) and testimonies from contemporaries. That's how historians study the past, and there's no reason why martial arts should be an exception.

Ueshiba had no problem filming his choreographed demonstrations in the 1930s, so what's the problem with filming a few sanctioned bouts showing off his fighting prowess?

And again, students and close friends simply cannot be trusted regardless of their background. They are highly biased towards the person in question due to their close inter-personal relationships. In terms of history, yes historians use first and second hand sources to construct historical narratives. We know that Ueshiba practiced martial arts. We know that Ueshiba established a school. We know that Ueshbia eventually founded Aikido. Fighting prowess is a different matter altogether, and Ueshiba's fighting ability isn't the only one questioned after the fact. Bruce Lee is another historical martial arts figure who's fighting ability is beginning to get questioned.

A single anecdote (like the Norris one) is very different from consistent statements from every top martial artist at the time about Ueshiba's overall level. Talking about objectivity, Minoru Mochizuki had no problem saying that his daito ryu techniques were not sufficient to beat wrestlers, or that savate was superior to karate. Yet, he also said that nobody could beat Ueshiba when they trained together, despite Mochizuki being 24 years younger and an outstanding competitor by all accounts.

And those are multiple opinions from a clearly opinionated guy who clearly had a very high opinion of Ueshiba. There's so much bias at play that it isn't even funny.

Where's the objective evidence?

 

[caped crusader]

Anyway I think competition is good. Aside from the Fitness and tactics which are good it attracts young people to Martial arts. Without competition not many will be interested in only Tradition.

 

[caped crusader]

I remember I met this shotokan master. He definitely liked Sport karate. Was a nice guy. Has a good following in Germany.

Hideo Ochi - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Oily Dragon]

You know what I was talking about. Let's not play semantics please.

Yes I do, but Shaolin Chan had a larger impact on the world than any martial art ever could.

They sure outlasted the Ching Dynasty. They changed the course of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese history, before becoming a household name in the West.

Also, the Manchus had actual armies. No monastery was safe, even one filled with svelte, armed monks.

 

[Hanzou]

Yes I do, but Shaolin Chan had a larger impact on the world than any martial art ever could.

I'm not sure I can agree with that..... That would be being EXTREMELY generous with the history of Chinese MA and the legend of Bodhidharma.

They sure outlasted the Ching Dynasty. They changed the course of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese history, before becoming a household name in the West.

They outlasted them because Europeans and the Japanese rolled in and broke the country.

 

[Oily Dragon]

I'm not sure I can agree with that..... That would be being EXTREMELY generous with the history of Chinese MA and the legend of Bodhidharma.


They outlasted them because Europeans and the Japanese rolled in and broke the country.

Chan didn't really start with Damo. It began in India. The Shaolin attribute dhyana practice to him, but they tended to do that a lot (attribute things to beloved dead people).

But what was basically an injection of Buddhism into Taoist minds eventually changed the spiritual fabric of all of Asia. And well beyond.

Can't say any martial art has had the cultural impact of, say, this book.

 

[Oily Dragon]

Which is obviously based on this one...

 

[geezer]

Can't say any martial art has had the cultural impact of, say, this book.

View attachment 27515

Dunno. ,

Like everybody else I read that in the mid 70s ....about the same time I started training Chinese martial arts. Seems to me that the sudden popularity of Pirsig's book and the Asian martial arts back then reflected our culture. How much lasting influence that book had is an open question.

Heck, how much of that book ...or Asian martial arts the average Joe even understood is an open question.



I mean seriously, how many young "seekers" back in the 70s actually understood what Pirsig's book or the martial arts were really about?

Heck, I sure didn't!

...

 

[drop bear]

He never changed the techniques because of his spiritual beliefs, and the documents from that time (as well as several testimonies from people who were there) contradict that claim. He delivered Daito ryu certificates after the war and the 1955 Maki no Ichi aikido manual contained the same technical information as the 1935 (Daito ryu) Budo manual. He stayed with Saito in Iwama until his death and Saito explicitly said that they kept doing techniques according to the 1935 Budo manual. The third Doshu, Moriteru Ueshiba, said that the techniques were changed by Kisshomaru Ueshiba, not Morihei:

“The techniques and way of Aikido that the founder O-Sensei left us, was not always easily understood by everyone. Doshu, my father, changed these so they would be easily understood, and he gave all of his life to spread this. For that reason he left behind many books that he had written. I grew up watching Doshu return from keiko to study and write for long hours and even with my child’s eyes I could see the importance of this work”.
Source: Moriteru Ueshiba, "To the spirit of the past Doshu", Aikikai Hombu Dojo Aikido Shimbun, January 1999.



Royce Gracie did this during one of the first inter-styles matches that were sanctionated and filmed. Expecting the same standard of proof from someone who died decades earlier is laughable. Absent video "proof" (whose validity is debatable...) we turn to documented facts (e.g. the fact that Kano sent several of his best students to study with Ueshiba, or the fact that a world-class judo athlete like Abbe studied and taught aikido after meeting Ueshiba) and testimonies from contemporaries. That's how historians study the past, and there's no reason why martial arts should be an exception.

A single anecdote (like the Norris one) is very different from consistent statements from every top martial artist at the time about Ueshiba's overall level. Talking about objectivity, Minoru Mochizuki had no problem saying that his daito ryu techniques were not sufficient to beat wrestlers, or that savate was superior to karate. Yet, he also said that nobody could beat Ueshiba when they trained together, despite Mochizuki being 24 years younger and an outstanding competitor by all accounts.

The issue is people can still use Gracie BJJ effectively today. And so don't really rely on Royce to flagship the style.