Is weakness in the art or the practitioner?

[Jenna]

I don't want to call out any arts by name. For one thing, any art that I actually trained long enough to speak authoritatively on wouldn't be one that I thought had that flaw. For another, the method of teaching an art can make a big difference and that can vary from school to school.

In general, I would say that if a martial art requires 10+ years of dedicated study to be used effectively, then it might be making unreasonable demands on the practitioner.

More specifically, I would say that an art which fails to degrade gracefully has problems. This is a concept from engineering - the idea that when part of a system fails, the whole thing shouldn't fall apart. If I can function with a proficiency level of 10 in the dojo, but then I get in a real fight and under pressure I lose 30% of my technical details, then I should still be fighting with a proficiency level of around 7. If I can't use my art effectively at all when I've lost that much of my technique in an adrenaline dump, then there's an issue and it's not just my fault as a practitioner.



My Dad studied human factors. Alien factors is a whole different department.

Goodness you are entitled to call out which ever arts you feel though I had heard this notion in particular that Aikido was exactly such an art that required some mystical level of adeptness before one even dared to imagine oneself competent to use any of it.. I do not understand how this myth originates.. or how the converse implication would work that I can walk into some other not-Aikido training place and walk out after two hours and be able to throw attackers off walls or put them through the ground?? I mean like does every art not require a minimum of time before the techniques can be reliably and consistently applied in a variety of real situations?? this applies to all arts and styles none are different in this respect yes??

I very much like your point about graceful degradation.. I had not heard this term used previously in context of martial art.. did you theorise this your self?? I think it is a very insightful way of thinking.. thank you for sharing this x

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I do not understand how this myth originates.. or how the converse implication would work that I can walk into some other not-Aikido training place and walk out after two hours and be able to throw attackers off walls or put them through the ground?? I mean like does every art not require a minimum of time before the techniques can be reliably and consistently applied in a variety of real situations?? this applies to all arts and styles none are different in this respect yes??

Well, I've seen quite a few Aikido practitioners state that it take longer to become proficient and effective in Aikido than in many other arts, so it's not just an accusation made by outsiders.

Any art requires significant time and effort before the techniques become reliably effective. The question is whether there is a difference between different arts in the minimum time to reach that point.

In BJJ (for example), working with a student of average ability who trains 3 times per week, in around 6 months I can get that student to the point where they should be able to use their techniques in a real fight. Not saying the student will be any sort of invincible powerhouse or that they wouldn't get their butt kicked by a tougher opponent - just that they should be able to use what they've learned so far.

In 2 years that same student should have a huge advantage in a fight against an untrained opponent, unless that opponent has some other significant advantage (like a major size differential).

After 5 years, that same student should be dangerous in a fight even when facing an opponent who has training or is significantly bigger.

I'm not making any claims of BJJ superiority. I'm just laying out a typical timeline based on my experience as a BJJ instructor. Probably other arts can lay out a similar timeline.

What I'm reading from a lot of Aikido practitioners is that the minimum timeline to reach those sorts of milestones is significantly longer. Based on your experience in the art, do you agree or disagree?

I very much like your point about graceful degradation.. I had not heard this term used previously in context of martial art.. did you theorise this your self?? I think it is a very insightful way of thinking.. thank you for sharing this x

I have not seen the term used in a martial arts context before. Maybe I came up with something original? Nah, probably somebody somewhere has used it. I'm a computer programmer, so the concept is familiar to me.

 

[Jenna]

Well, I've seen quite a few Aikido practitioners state that it take longer to become proficient and effective in Aikido than in many other arts, so it's not just an accusation made by outsiders.

Any art requires significant time and effort before the techniques become reliably effective. The question is whether there is a difference between different arts in the minimum time to reach that point.

In BJJ (for example), working with a student of average ability who trains 3 times per week, in around 6 months I can get that student to the point where they should be able to use their techniques in a real fight. Not saying the student will be any sort of invincible powerhouse or that they wouldn't get their butt kicked by a tougher opponent - just that they should be able to use what they've learned so far.

In 2 years that same student should have a huge advantage in a fight against an untrained opponent, unless that opponent has some other significant advantage (like a major size differential).

After 5 years, that same student should be dangerous in a fight even when facing an opponent who has training or is significantly bigger.

I'm not making any claims of BJJ superiority. I'm just laying out a typical timeline based on my experience as a BJJ instructor. Probably other arts can lay out a similar timeline.

What I'm reading from a lot of Aikido practitioners is that the minimum timeline to reach those sorts of milestones is significantly longer. Based on your experience in the art, do you agree or disagree?



I have not seen the term used in a martial arts context before. Maybe I came up with something original? Nah, probably somebody somewhere has used it. I'm a computer programmer, so the concept is familiar to me.

Tony! yes I have heard this also. Only on internet discussions. I suspect several bases for this and could hypothesise on each basis for why an Aikido practitioner would seek to create in the minds of practitioners of other arts the idea that Aikido is somehow extra-super-special and that nobody else outside of the Aikido time-served brotherhood can really ever fully understand or appreciate it.. Why do you think they might do this?? I imagine it give it Aikido a mystique or.. conversely provide an excuse for ineffective or curiously directed training?? I have seen much time wasted in Aiki dojos over the biggest load of ******** right from the first oddly doled out shomen uchi that have no relevance to any real world situation.. and what is the point of that??

I can not know the reason why some one in Aiki circles would wish to create this notion. I cannot argue that it is reflective of the training of some.. then I would question the efficacy of that very training they have received.. I agree with you.. if it cannot work to its own standard within what MOST practitioners consider a reasonable time then what point does it have? None! So this idea variously purveyed of the necessity of some master apprenticeship needing to be served before an Aikidoka can string four or five techniques together in a situation suggestive of the real world, I think it is a complete crock of ******* **** and but that is just because none of this even vaguely reflect my own experience which completely refute this idea.

So I was just wondering was Aikido one of those arts you were referring to as I guessed it may have been having also seen these descriptions of Aikido also that you have mentioned.. and then my question is not to you because your knowledge is as you have said second hand, my question is to whomever views their Aikido as being wholly ineffective until some master magical apprenticeship has been served.. And you might consider copyright (C) your Graceful Degradation as an MA core idea?? hah or maybe that is only for the big egos that would want their own MA?? Thank you again for your thoughts and views you are consistently insightful and also courteous for which you have my gratitude thank you x

 

[lklawson]

Tony! yes I have heard this also. Only on internet discussions. I suspect several bases for this and could hypothesise on each basis for why an Aikido practitioner would seek to create in the minds of practitioners of other arts the idea that Aikido is somehow extra-super-special and that nobody else outside of the Aikido time-served brotherhood can really ever fully understand or appreciate it..

I've seen the general statement made many times. It usually comes from one of three people. First, is the Aikidoka who has, for whatever reason, moved on to another art. They compare the second art to the prior and make these statements. Second, from Aikidoka who, for whatever reason, have decided to add a second art to their existing Aikido without giving it up. This seems to be most common of Aikidoka who add Judo or BJJ. Third, I've seen the statement from Aikidoka who have "lost" a "fight," either in some real-world self defense situation or to some other martial artist in a more-or-less "friendly" match.

There are plenty of Aikidoka who are very happy with their art. But there are some who believe that the art has, in their view, shortcomings, one of which being a longer training & practice time before "real world" competency.

Why do you think they might do this?? I imagine it give it Aikido a mystique or..

While I am sure this is true for some, I can also say with some authority that it is not true for all, perhaps not even most. About 15 years ago, a Yoshinkan instructor famously stated that "BJJ is Aikido on the ground" and endorsed cross training in the the two as highly complementary martial arts.

I can not know the reason why some one in Aiki circles would wish to create this notion.

Well, hopefully, I've given you a few ideas to mull over.

I cannot argue that it is reflective of the training of some.. then I would question the efficacy of that very training they have received.. I agree with you.. if it cannot work to its own standard within what MOST practitioners consider a reasonable time then what point does it have? None!

Well, if the only standard is "fighting capability" then, yeah. If there is some other standard, perhaps, then that line of reasoning is less relevant. Many Aikidoka I've met believe very strongly in the "do" of Aikido, and attempt to apply what they believe to be Aikido's harmonizing philosophy to their entire life, not just fighting, or even "conflict resolution," but (to the best of their ability) to all elements of interpersonal relationships, work, and their own life-goals. To many Aikidoka, Aikido is not JUST fighting. The "martial" element of the "martial art" is only one, comparatively small, facet of the "art."

my question is to whomever views their Aikido as being wholly ineffective until some master magical apprenticeship has been served.

That's not the type of thing that was being discussed. To be blunt, it was closer to "What if a particular martial art takes 1 year to make a person 'effective' in a fight but another one takes 8 years to do the same?" The idea being that some martial arts, in your example, Aikido, being the latter, might take a lot longer to produce "street effective" fighters.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Kenpoguy123]

I have seen stated several times that every martial art has a weakness, but does it? Could it be possible that the weakness just lies in the practitioner?

No if you're the best boxer in the world and no every single detail about boxing perfectly and have 100 wins all by knockout that won't stop you getting taken down by a wrestler.

Or if you're jiu jitsu black belt who's won every tournament in the world that won't stop you getting beaten up on your feet by a boxer or karate fighter

 

[Touch Of Death]

No if you're the best boxer in the world and no every single detail about boxing perfectly and have 100 wins all by knockout that won't stop you getting taken down by a wrestler.

Or if you're jiu jitsu black belt who's won every tournament in the world that won't stop you getting beaten up on your feet by a boxer or karate fighter

As for Akido, or any other art, if you don't study and perfect the attacks, you will never be very good at defending yourself from the attacks. There are a lot of attacks to worry about.