What do you think is the most ruthless?

[Joab]

Had you just said that and stopped there at the outset, nobody would have criticized your comments. Ueshiba never made any claims of intended ruthlessness regarding Aikido that I am aware of. But you then went on to make judgements about Aikido's effectiveness against other styles, all the while prefacing your comments with "I don't know enough to judge." You are argueing with zero first hand knowledge and relying entirely on anecdotes made by two financially invested individuals:

Joab: Yeah, your right, I should have stopped there. Again, I wasn't writing this based on my expertise but rather the two individuals I qouted. But I should have just stopped there, your right.

Anecdotes and unverifiable claims.

,

If the story is true, which I seriously doubt, all that it means is that these two guys are good at keeping opponents from grabbing their wrists in a controled stunt. Keep in mind that its easy as pie to prevent a technique that you know is coming against an opponent who isn't going to do anything other than try to grab your wrist. Two words for you: Stage Stunt. Looks good and sounds impressive to the inexperienced or uninformed. To the informed, not so much.

Joab: Ok Daniel, let's get this straight. Only Sifu Beal told me he challenged an aikido school, not Professor Steiner. Professor Steiner did say it is impossible to grab a wrist and put someone who is throwing a punch at you into a wrist lock. But Professor Steiner made no claim of challenging a school. I know it would be impossible to put Sifu Beal into a wrist lock, he punched and kicked so fast it was more of a blur than anything. Sifu Beal did believe it was impossible to put somebody who was into a wristlock that was throwing a punch at you as well.


And anyway, since when is wristlocking a punch the gauge of Aikido effectiveness. That's like saying that the effectiveness of the shuto is the true measure of karate, while ignoring all of the kicks, punches, blocks, and such. Aikido is about much more than snatching punches out of the air and wristlocking them.

Daniel

Well, it was what Sifu Beal talked about when I told him I was considering aikido when I visited his school. Yes, he had a financial stake in convincing me to go to his school, but I believe he and Professor Steiner are correct. And they are the experts, not me, I was merely qouting them. But I shouldn't have brought the issue up.

 

[Flying Crane]

Well, it was what Sifu Beal talked about when I told him I was considering aikido when I visited his school. Yes, he had a financial stake in convincing me to go to his school, but I believe he and Professor Steiner are correct. And they are the experts, not me, I was merely qouting them. But I shouldn't have brought the issue up.

But, are they the experts in AIKIDO?

 

[Joab]

But, are they the experts in AIKIDO?

Joab: You can ask Professor Steiner at www.americancombato.com He wrote an article on aikido in one of the Sword & Pen newsletters on his site, don't recall which month. Don't have a link to Sifu Beal, he teaches Wing Chun, Professor Steiner teaches American Combato.

 

[Flying Crane]

Joab: You can ask Professor Steiner at www.americancombato.com He wrote an article on aikido in one of the Sword & Pen newsletters on his site, don't recall which month. Don't have a link to Sifu Beal, he teaches Wing Chun, Professor Steiner teaches American Combato.

Are you unable to tell me what his background, if any, is in aikido? Yet you hold him as the expert on aikido's effectiveness?

My point is only that it's easy to cast judgement over an art from the standpoint of an outsider looking in. It's also very very easy for such judgement to be absolutely inaccurate.

Mr. Steiner may well be a skilled martial artist. I have no familiarity with him, or his system, and i have no interest in him or it. But if he has never studied aikido, or only studied it superficially, or studied with a poor teacher, or he simply doesn't have the right "knack" for aikido, then he is not in much of a position to cast judgement over the art as a whole. There are simply too many variables at play, and this goes for any person practicing any art. The quality of their teachers, their own strengths and weaknesses in their ability to learn and integrate the art, etc. Every art has its stellar people, and likewise every art has its failures. Just because someone trained under the best teacher is no guarantee that that person is any good. See what I'm saying? too many variables on a personal level to ever make a broad judgement like that.

There is a real danger in passing judgement from the vantage point of an outsider looking in. You are judging based on the standards of your own experiences, which may be absolutely irrelevant to the art that you are attempting to judge. The art is different, and it probably has some very good reasons for doing things as it does. Just because it is different from what you (or Mr. Steiner) does, doesn't mean it's no good. It just means Mr. Steiner made a sweeping judgement about which he is probably wrong. The most that he can say is that the art isn't right for him.

 

[Joab]

Are you unable to tell me what his background, if any, is in aikido? Yet you hold him as the expert on aikido's effectiveness?

Joab: I have no idea if Professor Steiner has ever taken aikido, to answer your question. I know he has two black belts in two different styles of ju jitsu, an eighth degree black belt in kenpo karate, and a 10th degree black belt in American Combato which he founded, but no, I have no idea if he ever took aikido.

 

[Flying Crane]

Are you unable to tell me what his background, if any, is in aikido? Yet you hold him as the expert on aikido's effectiveness?

Joab: I have no idea if Professor Steiner has ever taken aikido, to answer your question. I know he has two black belts in two different styles of ju jitsu, an eighth degree black belt in kenpo karate, and a 10th degree black belt in American Combato which he founded, but no, I have no idea if he ever took aikido.

Fair enough.

and I'm not trying to browbeat you over this. Rather, I'm just pointing out the flaws in the logic behind what appears to have been said by Mr. Steiner to you, and that you passed along here.

granted, I came into this thread very late and I don't have a dog in this race one way or the other. But I do get concerned when I see sweeping judgements made about entire methods and systems, because I just do not believe anyone is in a position to make that judgement as a whole.

I have seen a lot of people pass judgement over other systems that they themselves do not study, or perhaps have only studied superficially. I've seen many people judge one system based on the standards of their own system, and I believe that that attitude is severely myopic at best. I've argued with people right here in this forum about this, even going so far as to start a thread on that very topic. I'll say it straight up: if you want to judge a system, then you need to take the time to learn it on its own merits. You cannot judge it based on the standards of another system. And once you've taken that time to study, then you can really only judge the art for yourself, and decide if it is something you yourself can be comfortable with and can use effectively. And even then you need to recognize that perhaps with a different teacher or a different experience you might feel differently about it. But each person needs to make that judgement for himself.

When I was younger, I used to have a very bad attitude toward one particular system. But then in college, I met a guy who trained in that system. We got together a couple times to train, and he literally kicked my *** up and down. It really changed my attitude. I still had no interest in learning that system myself, but I realized that there are people who are very very good with it, and who can be tremendously effective with it.

anyway, hope this gives you a different perspective to consider

all the best.

 

[Joab]

Fair enough.

and I'm not trying to browbeat you over this. Rather, I'm just pointing out the flaws in the logic behind what appears to have been said by Mr. Steiner to you, and that you passed along here.

granted, I came into this thread very late and I don't have a dog in this race one way or the other. But I do get concerned when I see sweeping judgements made about entire methods and systems, because I just do not believe anyone is in a position to make that judgement as a whole.

I have seen a lot of people pass judgement over other systems that they themselves do not study, or perhaps have only studied superficially. I've seen many people judge one system based on the standards of their own system, and I believe that that attitude is severely myopic at best. I've argued with people right here in this forum about this, even going so far as to start a thread on that very topic. I'll say it straight up: if you want to judge a system, then you need to take the time to learn it on its own merits. You cannot judge it based on the standards of another system. And once you've taken that time to study, then you can really only judge the art for yourself, and decide if it is something you yourself can be comfortable with and can use effectively. And even then you need to recognize that perhaps with a different teacher or a different experience you might feel differently about it. But each person needs to make that judgement for himself.

When I was younger, I used to have a very bad attitude toward one particular system. But then in college, I met a guy who trained in that system. We got together a couple times to train, and he literally kicked my *** up and down. It really changed my attitude. I still had no interest in learning that system myself, but I realized that there are people who are very very good with it, and who can be tremendously effective with it.

anyway, hope this gives you a different perspective to consider

all the best.

Joab: Well, this forum seems to be the opposite of the bullshido forum which is good. I think they go way too far the other way. At any rate, my point in my post was not to denigrate aikido so much as to point out that some systems techniques are far less ruthless than others. I also pointed out that aikido had a beautiful philosophy. unfortunately I also qouted two experts from other arts that told me aikido can't work, and this is where the controversy began. I'll never take aikido so I'll never know, if somebody gets something from it more power to him.

 

[Hand Sword]

Some of your point is fine. The issue is "Aikido can't work" because "experts" in OTHER styles say so. Ridiculous! Don't you think that Aikido experts can make it work for them? I'd say absoluetly. At least as well as your "experts" make their way work for them. The Ju jitsu holds work for your guys just fine, (as he stayed long enough and earned belts in it) but, the same or similar holds won't work for Aikido people because...they're Aikido practitioners? That's foolish.

Unfortunately, the MA's are not about "hearsay" it's about doing, and finding out for yourself. So, as I suggested, go find out for yourself, then come to a conclusion, just like normal people do. There is no harm in that. It's all apart of growing as a person and an artist.

 

[Hand Sword]

Perhaps this thread could be moved into the Aikido section, since it is regarding their art? Maybe some of the experts in there can shed a better light and address Joab's thoughts/concerns?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Well, it was what Sifu Beal talked about when I told him I was considering aikido when I visited his school. Yes, he had a financial stake in convincing me to go to his school, but I believe he and Professor Steiner are correct. And they are the experts, not me, I was merely qouting them. But I shouldn't have brought the issue up.

It isn't that you brought it up; you're a member here and are welcome to bring up subjects and post your opinion.

But when you go about making assertions that can only be supported by defering to the opinions of two other individuals, opinions which may or may not be valid, expect to be called on it.

Also, these gents may hold high in their respective arts of Combato and Wing Chun. But that doesn't make them experts regarding Aikido. It just means that they've been teaching their arts for a while. That is all.

I could sit here and quote ad nauseum the horrible things that people on the web say about Wing Chun, some of whom claim expertise and experience with the art (you mentioned Bullshido, where such threads seem to spring up at a rate of about five per day). But since I don't know thing one about WC aside from that it involves striking and has trapping maneuvers and that Bruce Lee got started in it, I keep my mouth shut. I haven't practiced with any WC practitioners, thus I have no first hand knowledge.

There are tons of stories about WC guys of high rank getting humiliated or of only being able to win by falling back on another MA, but that's all that they are: stories.

I made numerous points in my post, with your only response being that two guys, one of whom had a financial interest in talking you out of Aikido, have told you.

Wrist locking a moving punch is kind of cool, but it is like high kicks in taekwondo; nice if you can pull it off, but hardly the meat and potatoes of the art. there are other techniques in Aikido for dealing with punches, and there are also varying types of punches. Wrist locking a reverse punch or a backfist, for example, is much more accomplishable than wristlocking a jab.

Incidentally, if these guys are challenging a bunch of students to try to grab their wrists when they punch, don't you think that they'll throw their punches specifically to keep them from being grabbed? That isn't the same as actually trying to strike an opponent; the object has changed from inflicting injury to showing off how quick your hands are.

Since you don't know the specifics of the story (type of punch, dynamic or static sparring, experience level of the Aikidoka, which school, any stipulations that may have been made in the challenge) and have no means of verifying it, please stop using it as support for an uninformed statement. It makes you look foolish.

Also, its kind of like someone else calling you a name behind your back, then me going on the internet and saying that you must be a real (insert name) because such and such said so, and he's to ten dots in his rep, so he must be an expert. Don't you think that it's a poor attempt at a save to say, 'I didn't say it, I was only repeating what someone else said. I don't know you well enough to judge you, but such and such said it.'

That is the sort of nonsense that you see in middle school and high school. I think that from other posts that you've made in other threads that you're more mature than that, and honestly better than that.

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Well, this forum seems to be the opposite of the bullshido forum which is good. I think they go way too far the other way. At any rate, my point in my post was not to denigrate aikido so much as to point out that some systems techniques are far less ruthless than others.

I'd agree with you here, though I'd substitute the word damaging for ruthless.

I also pointed out that aikido had a beautiful philosophy. unfortunately I also qouted two experts from other arts that told me aikido can't work, and this is where the controversy began.

The controversy wasn't that you quoted them, but that their comments are unverifiable and you don't have the expertise to evaluate their comments. Yet you used them to support an assertion that 'Aikido can't work against fast striking styles.'

No worries. Its just a discussion.

I'll never take aikido so I'll never know, if somebody gets something from it more power to him.

Why not? Why close that door? Never rule out learning another style, even if only for a few months to get a feel for it. Often, it will teach you some things about the style you already are familiar with, as you will see different approaches to the same problems offered. In fact, cross training can improve your core martial art, though given that you've said that you're a beginner, I'd suggest getting a solid foundation in a core art first before branching off.

Daniel

 

[TigerCraneGuy]

Hi Joab,

As one Christian MAist to another, remember the Lord's advice: test everything!

Be careful of what so-called 'experts' purport to be 'truth'. As you progress further into the MA world, you'll find that the number of stripes on one's black belt may well mean zip unless they were earned.

And even so, rank (true or bogus) does not equate to infallibility. No one has all the answers. And in terms of Art-X Vs Art-Y, it all comes down to the practitioner, not the style.

Lastly, I agree with others here that ruthlessness is more a mindset / attitude / philosophy than a descriptor for any particular art. Every style, in fact, has its share of 'gentle' and 'lethal' techniques. For example, in my system (Kenpo 5.0), we have a range of options from simple deflective parries, striking blocks, and rib-punches, to full-on eye-shots, throat strikes, and neck-breaks.

There is a time and place for everything. The key is to know when and where to employ each option appropriately.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
TCG

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

what do you guys think is the most ruthless martial art that is publicly taught?

Since we've pretty much established that it is the person who is ruthless, not the art, I'd like to restate your quesiton:

what do you guys think is the most damaging martial art that is publicly taught?

Don't talk about some art that no one has ever heard of, I am strictly speaking about something one can actually find a place to train in it.

To do you the courtesy of answering your question, United States political office. You attain a high enough grade (president) and you have access to an entire military, secret service, and most importantly, the button. Push the button, cities go boom. There you are: most ruthless. Happy?

You seem to have this preocupation with the idea of ruthlessness; you've posted other threads since this one about not wanting anything "sport based" and mention karate and taekwondo as being sport based. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about regarding the foundations of these arts.

What are you after for yourself?

This whole idea of training in the "most ruthless art" is the windmill jousting of MA. As Joab pointed out, if you learn the most damaging techniques but don't have the mindset to apply them, then there really isn't much point.

Lastly, since you don't seem to respond to any of your own threads past the OP, you're looking more and more like a troll, especially after that 'white people' remark on your kung fu thread.

Daniel

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

Side-stepping the very valid point that arts are not ruthless, people are, there's still a few things that need to be clarified.
The main one of course being what definition of ruthless we are talking about here. Especially because what being ruthless actually involves is decided entirely by your objective. And also remembering that to be ruthless does not mean simply willing to perform any action to achieve your goals, it also means the willingness to endure any action by others if necessary.
For example Gandhi could be considered one of the most ruthless men in history because of his willingness to endure anything for his objective of pacificism.
What this means in relation to martial arts, is that an art could be incredibly ruthless in its apporach to dealing out damage and destruction to survive, but fail to be truly ruthless as it never address how to endure any damage that might occur.

 

[Flying Crane]

I am the most ruthless. I rip the spinal cords from newborn babies, and I laugh all the while!

Top that, ya yellow-bellied knee-knockers!

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

I bludgeoned a man to death. Using another man.

 

[Flying Crane]

I bludgeoned a man to death. Using another man.

oohhh, I RESPECT that!

 

[Tez3]

Huh! I married a man!!

 

[Flying Crane]

Huh! I married a man!!

leave 'im alone, ya cold-hearted bastard!

 

[Tez3]

leave 'im alone, ya cold-hearted bastard!

:whip1: :lfao: