How effective can aikido be?
dc...@my-dejanews.com
writing this post.
Most of the arts seem to take a bashing in this group from people who
practice something else. Aikido seems to take more than its share, though.
Even those people who are trying not to slam it too hard seem to believe that
it would take much more training for an aikidoka to defend himself
effectively than someone training in a different art. I'd like to hear some
reasoned opinions as to why people believe that. Is it that the aikidoka
isn't forced to defend against "realistic" attacks in class? And those of
you who practice aikido, do you feel the self-defense aspects of the art
would be picked up more quickly with more rigorous training? Do any of you
train against truly aggressive attacks? Do some styles of aikido train more
"realistically" than others?
Now before I get slammed for posting this, let me say that I realize that
aikido is supposed to be much more than just the physical techniques. But
the techniques and the time needed to make them really work are what I'm
interested in right now.
And finally, please, no posts like, "Aikido sucks!," or, "BJJ is *it*, man!"
(Although I'm sure they're inevitable anyway.) I'd really like to hear what
some of the perceptions out there are.
Dan
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Luv2shmooz
karate training. Personally, I find the footwork and evasion concepts a
terrific auxillary to what i'm doing.
Certainly, some of the techniques may be incompatible with modern street
attacks, but that could be said of many martial arts techniques as well.
Nevertheless, learning even archaic techniques has some value, if only for
teaching us body movement.
walter kopitov
>Let me say up front that I know very little about aikido. That's why I'm
>writing this post.
>
immortal
: aikido is supposed to be much more than just the physical techniques. But
: the techniques and the time needed to make them really work are what I'm
: interested in right now.
Well, let me make one point overall, it's not so much techniques that work
as people using techniques and principles. It's better to know one
technique or one principle and be able to apply it then fifty and not have
a clue.
That said, Aikido has its reputation for being hard to master, but I don't
know if anyone here can back that up seeing as probably nobody here has
mastered it or any other martial art, let alone both in order to make the
comparison!
It's true that as mentioned before, some schools take a more self-defense
view than others, but my own philosophy is that nobody trains for "real"
situations because class environments are controlled. One can construct a
good theoretical argument that there is such a thing as "more realistic
training" and "less realistic training" but I don't know how much I go for
those six-of-one half-dozen-of-another arguments.
What do you want out of a martial art? When you say you'd like to learn
techniques and how to make them work, what do you mean? Would you like to
build a mental list of attack-response pairs? If so, then Aikido (at
least how I practice it) is probably not a good choice. As we practice
it, it's very much about theory that can be extended just as well to
holding a child as pinning an opponent. The techniques are built to
reinforce the theory and principles, not to build up an arsenal of "what
if someone comes at you like this?" responses.
My advice to you would be to look at schools, watch classes, and see what
you like. Look for a good instructor. You might find a non-traditional
aikido instructor who fills your need.
Best of luck,
Justin
tenzenryu
Karate sucks more than Aikido
I practise Karate BTW so I know what I am talking about. I have had to make
massive adjustments to make my Karate anyway healthy or useful
Tenzen
[SNIP]
mu...@my-dejanews.com
>
> Most of the arts seem to take a bashing in this group from people who
> practice something else. Aikido seems to take more than its share, though.
> Even those people who are trying not to slam it too hard seem to believe that
> it would take much more training for an aikidoka to defend himself
> effectively than someone training in a different art. I'd like to hear some
> reasoned opinions as to why people believe that. Is it that the aikidoka
> isn't forced to defend against "realistic" attacks in class?
In some cases yes,the training is not geared towards self defense or practical
use. This is fine as long as it is made clear to the students. All too often
this is not done.
>And those of you who practice aikido, do you feel the self-defense aspects of
>the art would be picked up more quickly with more rigorous training?
Yes, I fully agree.Any self defense or application of the art creates stress.
Rigorous training helps to build proper reactions provided the right
psychological attitude is taught.
>Do any of you train against truly aggressive attacks? Do some styles of
>aikido train more "realistically" than others?
Sure, Yoshinkan in some schools is taught more practically. Also, Nihon
Goshin is supposed to be more practical. Several instructors such as Kuroiwa
and Chiba, and Kanai to name just a few teach more agressive and practical
use of aikido.
Based on my own practice, Aikido is practical. You have to be willing to put
the time in to training to make it that way. You will probably need to study
other aspects of self defense( gun use, knife work, situational awareness...)
to put it all in perspective. Chance of finding an instructor or sensei who
can teach all of this is slim.
Alex
I studied Nihon Goshin Aikido for 6 months before I knew much about martial
arts. The first wrist principal you are describing is a form of wrist pin
called Nikkyo. Look at any good Aikido book and you will learn the proper
names for the techniques. Also, the "Jacket Grab", is just another
variation of Nikkyo.
I have a story for you. While attending a Wing Chun Kung Fu class, a
student of my Nihon Goshin Aikido class walked in (I studied at the
Guttenberg school - World Headquarters.) I won't name the student, but he
was a brown belt (Ikkyu) and was going to test for his black belt in about 4
months. His techniques were really fantasic, and he was probably one of the
best in our school. I was surprised to see him at the Wing Chun class, and
I asked him why he was there. He told me "Well, I just don't feel
comfortable in a street fight situation, and I want to supplement my Aikido
training with something else." THIS IS A QUOTE!!! I nearly fell off my
chair when he told me that. This guy had been training for 5 years and had
NO CONFIDENCE in his ability to defend himself on the street.
I never went back to that school again.
walter kopitov
Alex wrote in message <7cm98d$5bs$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>Walter,
>
>I studied Nihon Goshin Aikido for 6 months before I knew much about martial
>arts. The first wrist principal you are describing is a form of wrist pin
>called Nikkyo. Look at any good Aikido book and you will learn the proper
>names for the techniques. Also, the "Jacket Grab", is just another
>variation of Nikkyo.
I call the technique the way it is taught in NGA. I am not a student of
other Aikido styles. As for Nikkyo, depending on the style it is also
calles Ikkyo.
>
I want to supplement my Aikido
>training with something else." THIS IS A QUOTE!!! I nearly fell off my
>chair when he told me that. This guy had been training for 5 years and had
>NO CONFIDENCE in his ability to defend himself on the street.
Some people lack confidence with dealing with the unknown, no matter what
the style.
or rank. Training at Guttenberg can be a very humbling experience. I have
had many people relate their successful use of techniques, training for a
short period of time. Several police officers have used this system
successfully and none of them have yet to reach San Kyu. Who was your
instrucor?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
EisMadchen
>Date: 3/16/99 1:48 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <7cm98d$5bs$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
>Walter,
>
>I studied Nihon Goshin Aikido for 6 months before I knew much about martial
>arts. The first wrist principal you are describing is a form of wrist pin
>called Nikkyo. Look at any good Aikido book and you will learn the proper
>names for the techniques. Also, the "Jacket Grab", is just another
>variation of Nikkyo.
>
>student of my Nihon Goshin Aikido class walked in (I studied at the
>Guttenberg school - World Headquarters.) I won't name the student, but he
>was a brown belt (Ikkyu) and was going to test for his black belt in about 4
>months. His techniques were really fantasic, and he was probably one of the
>best in our school. I was surprised to see him at the Wing Chun class, and
>I asked him why he was there. He told me "Well, I just don't feel
>training with something else." THIS IS A QUOTE!!! I nearly fell off my
>chair when he told me that. This guy had been training for 5 years and had
>NO CONFIDENCE in his ability to defend himself on the street.
>
>
confident about using aikido effectively on the street. Even then it is nice
to have nastier arts to fall back on.
I did it the other way around though, and learned aikido second so I could be
nicer.
Once you get good enough, however, you really are good enough to handle most
attacks.
Aiki1
<hap...@korea.net> wrote:
> I have a story for you. While attending a Wing Chun Kung Fu class, a
> student of my Nihon Goshin Aikido class walked in (I studied at the
> Guttenberg school - World Headquarters.) I won't name the student, but he
> was a brown belt (Ikkyu) and was going to test for his black belt in about 4
> months. His techniques were really fantasic, and he was probably one of the
> best in our school. I was surprised to see him at the Wing Chun class, and
> I asked him why he was there. He told me "Well, I just don't feel
> comfortable in a street fight situation, and I want to supplement my Aikido
> training with something else." THIS IS A QUOTE!!! I nearly fell off my
> chair when he told me that. This guy had been training for 5 years and had
> NO CONFIDENCE in his ability to defend himself on the street.
>
> I never went back to that school again.
Interesting, you based your entire decision on one person's unique and
subjective feelings about his OWN abilities and relationship to his art?
Not necessarily the best way to judge Anything, let alone a martial art or
one's OWN process.
mu...@my-dejanews.com
> I have a story for you. While attending a Wing Chun Kung Fu class, a
> student of my Nihon Goshin Aikido class walked in (I studied at the
> Guttenberg school - World Headquarters.) I won't name the student, but he
> was a brown belt (Ikkyu) and was going to test for his black belt in about 4
> months. His techniques were really fantasic, and he was probably one of the
> best in our school. I was surprised to see him at the Wing Chun class, and
> I asked him why he was there. He told me "Well, I just don't feel
> comfortable in a street fight situation, and I want to supplement my Aikido
> training with something else." THIS IS A QUOTE!!! I nearly fell off my
> chair when he told me that. This guy had been training for 5 years and had
> NO CONFIDENCE in his ability to defend himself on the street.
>
> I never went back to that school again.
>
I know of several people who have reported they have no confidence in their
training for use in the street. I also know of several who are very confident
in their training. Again and again it's been said and it is true, it comes
down to personal training, mental and physical with self confidence. I have
confidence in my own skills, 25 years at this point,and I know people I
consider better then myself who are totally lacking in self confidence in
protecting themselves.
The harder one is tested in training,the more likely they are to have
confidence in their training. I still maintain whether any art is practical
depends more on the person studying the art then the art they are studying.
SeiserL
style. Met some damn tough Aikidokas and some whimps. Same everywhere. I tend
to like more realistic training and do train in Aikido with others who have a
large background in different martial arts. My Sensei holds a 6th in Aikido,
4th in TKD, 4th in Judo, and a Kung Fu system. Great technique. Is his
effective? Yep, do doubt in my mind or body. Is it effective for others at the
school? Some yes, some no. Some study with self defense in mind, some don't.
Some are more aggressive, some aren't. But again, IMHO, I've seen that in any
art I've had the priveldge to study. Its why I tend to emphasize the mental and
psychological aspects of training as well as the sweat. So, is my Aikido
effective? Yes, I truly hope it is and hope I never really have to find out.
;-) I am just too old for chest thumbing. ;-)
Lynn
Tenshinkai Aikido/Lucaylucay Kali
"We do not rise to the level of our expectations. We fall to the level of our
training." Train well. KWATZ!
Lynn Seiser, PhD MFCC (Sei...@AOL.com)
Informative pages at http://members.aol.com/SeiserL/index.html
"Change is Natural & Inevitable"
jo...@konstadt.com
dc...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Let me say up front that I know very little about aikido. That's why I'm
> writing this post.
If you want to understand more about how people use Aikido in a practical
way, I strongly suggest you read the real life stories section of the Aikido
FAQ. If nothing else, it makes for entertaining reading. There are two parts.
The link for part one is
http://www.aikidofaq.com/real_life.html
There's a link there for the second part. You'll see that real life situations
where Aikido is useful are very different from many of the "street fight"
scenarios that the kicking/punching crowd likes to crow about here. Of course,
it depends on who you are. If you like to go to rowdy bars and get in drunks'
faces and knock the crap out of all comers, Aikido is probably not for you.
Personally, I don't have that problem. I don't get into those kinds of
conflicts. I'm no recluse but then again, I'm not looking to prove myself.
Reading this newsgroup, you tend to get the impression that bullies and
muggers are lurking at every corner. Kinda makes me scared to leave warm and
seemingly safe bossom of Manhattan.
For your reference, I not been studying Aikido for a very long time. The
school I attend is Shin Budo Kai. As I understand it, Imaizumi Sensai broke
with Ki Society becuase he wanted to focus more on weapons training, but we
still do a lot of Tohei's ki exercises. If you have any questions about those
styles specifically, I'd do my best. But I'm defitely not the authoritative
source.
I'll finish by pointing to another good link. It's titled "Aikido and Combat
Effectiveness" so it may be more of exactly what you're looking for.
http://www.aikiweb.com/general/combat.html
------------
jo...@personalsite.com
11 B'way, Ste 819 NYC 10004
This message provided as is, no warranties implied or expressed.
Jan Heikel
just wondering.
Jussi Häkkinen
>I practise Karate BTW so I know what I am talking about. I have had to
make
>massive adjustments to make my Karate anyway healthy or useful
>
>Tenzen
Actually, what style of karate do you practice, are you sure that you do it
right AND do you have a proper sensei to teach you.
Traditional Okinawan karate is healthy, contains pretty widely elements
(grappling and chokes too), and is designed for the common people. It
contains no high kicks to injure your hip and is useful and effective
self-defence.
I know many american karate styles suck big time, due to "americanizing".
You should stick into traditional karate, which contains lots of
Kata-training and hardly sparring at all. Kata is a key to succesful
selfdefence, and should be practiced in group too, i.e. your sensei should
teach what do you do in your form/kata.
I've also practiced classical aikido. It contains great ways of movement
and, what's the necessary, controlling the enemy's point of balance. It also
contains hits and kicks as a finishes, in higher level.
Overall, in classical styles, there are no "unhealthy" moves, because of
long history. Those moves have vanished in the grindstone of age. There are
wrong ways to do moves, yet no wrong moves.
Jussi Häkkinen
Shorinji-ryu Karate-do
immortal
: I know a third dan in aikido, who's been practicing for 18 years, who
: feels that until it is mastered, it's not the best art for
: self-defense.
Well, when is it ever mastered? I've been in conversations with
high-ranking Aikidoka who are discussing problems they have with certain
elements of motion. Example: Several fourth dans are talking about
trouble they're having with irimi (basic entry), and one says "Irimi is
difficult, I've been having problems with it lately" and Mitsugi Saotome
(Shihan), a direct disciple of O-sensei, says "Me too."
Honest story, but the point is we never master the art, period, because it
is exploration and development. You can never enter perfectly every time,
take the person's balance perfectly every time, be in the best position
every time.
I know for a fact however that several of these aikidoka have effectively
used aikido in physical street situations.
Best Regards,
Justin
walter kopitov
immortal wrote in message <7cqotj$ki6$2...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>...
>: First off, I'm not an expert at any martial art, much less aikido. But
>: I know a third dan in aikido, who's been practicing for 18 years, who
>: feels that until it is mastered, it's not the best art for
>: self-defense.
>
their ability though they have never gotten into a fight?
Russell L. Rader
>
> : First off, I'm not an expert at any martial art, much less aikido. But
> : I know a third dan in aikido, who's been practicing for 18 years, who
> : feels that until it is mastered, it's not the best art for
> : self-defense.
>
> high-ranking Aikidoka who are discussing problems they have with certain
> elements of motion. Example: Several fourth dans are talking about
> trouble they're having with irimi (basic entry), and one says "Irimi is
> difficult, I've been having problems with it lately" and Mitsugi Saotome
> (Shihan), a direct disciple of O-sensei, says "Me too."
>
> Honest story, but the point is we never master the art, period, because it
> is exploration and development. You can never enter perfectly every time,
> take the person's balance perfectly every time, be in the best position
> every time.
>
> I know for a fact however that several of these aikidoka have effectively
> used aikido in physical street situations.
Perhaps "master" wasn't the best choice of words. Let me put it this
way: Could you use aikido in a street self-defense situation (not an
Uncle Fred situation) after only a few years of study? While some
people have indeed done that, I get the feeling that it's not as
commonly accomplished as it is with arts like boxing, for example. IMO
aikido's philosophy is too passive, and therefore effective striking and
kicking is not trained as much as it should be. This would give the
aikidoka something to fall back on until he learns the traditional
aikido aspects properly. Just my personal opinion; I still think aikido
is a fine art.
Russ
Kevin
> Perhaps "master" wasn't the best choice of words. Let me put it this
> way: Could you use aikido in a street self-defense situation (not an
> Uncle Fred situation) after only a few years of study? While some
> people have indeed done that, I get the feeling that it's not as
> commonly accomplished as it is with arts like boxing, for example. IMO
> aikido's philosophy is too passive, and therefore effective striking and
> kicking is not trained as much as it should be. This would give the
> aikidoka something to fall back on until he learns the traditional
> aikido aspects properly. Just my personal opinion; I still think aikido
> is a fine art.
Hey Russ. Some thoughts, if you don't mind;
Much of what is learned in the first years of any martial
art is what you might call 'body awareness'. You learn
how you feel when you do certain things, to a level of
detail that you'd never even considered before. Balance,
fluidity, precision in movement, and footwork and body
work that you'd never really consider on your own gets
incorporated into your mental processes.
This is true of most any martial art; the differences
after that lie (well, the ones germaine to this conversation
anyway) in what gets taught at what time. Arnis
jumps right into weapons and quick easy practical methods
of doing others harm.
From that point of view, I don't disagree with you
about the effectiveness and sheer joy of philipino
martial arts; but I would like to point out that 'in
the street' someone learning aikido is still ahead
of the average yahoo in sheer body awareness and mental
control during the conflict. When grabbed, they will
generally have advantages in balance; when punched at
they will still know basic evasion technique.
I suppose what I'm saying is that even Aikidoka in
the first couple of years learn quite a bit more about
dealing with real conflict than they knew before they
trained, whether they know it or not. So yes, I think
you could say that you can use Aikido in a 'street
situation' in the first couple of years. Whether you
can pull off a clean throw or what have you is another
question, but hardly the requirement.
:o)
Kevin
bsome...@my-dejanews.com
will lead up to more realistic situation training....... Its like any other
martial art in its train progression..... (meaning more challenging training
as the student can handle it) at a certain level (2nd kyu or brown belt in
most systems) we will at times use full force blow to defend against to give
the student the benefit of controlled combat (first a single blow, grab, or
push pull..... then more and more) blending is the hardest thing for people
to "Re-learn"( I say re-learn because we naturally blend everyday without
thinking) watch a 3 year old child that has picked up something they
shouldn't..... you try to catch them and they will use the most natural
Aikido there is "EVASION & BLENDING" that kid will bob.... weave... duck....
spin!!!!( all without thinking of how to move) but if you throw a punch at a
grown man they will most like try to backup, stumble, loss balance........
there are some phonies out there that think were all monks .... drinking tea
....Aikido came from Daitoryu aikijiujutsu and that isn't a soft ,
ineffective , or weak M.A...... A lot of people don't like Steven Segal
but....... the guy is probably as good as seen in the movies I've seen
seminars where he threw 5 or 6 of us around like puppets , and it wasn't a
pretty sight.. (hard head knocking action) No one got hurt but It was a
lesson !!!!!
In article <7clpq3$5lf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
dc...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Let me say up front that I know very little about aikido. That's why I'm
> writing this post.
>
> Most of the arts seem to take a bashing in this group from people who
> practice something else. Aikido seems to take more than its share, though.
> Even those people who are trying not to slam it too hard seem to believe that
> it would take much more training for an aikidoka to defend himself
> effectively than someone training in a different art. I'd like to hear some
> reasoned opinions as to why people believe that. Is it that the aikidoka
> isn't forced to defend against "realistic" attacks in class? And those of
> you who practice aikido, do you feel the self-defense aspects of the art
> would be picked up more quickly with more rigorous training? Do any of you
> train against truly aggressive attacks? Do some styles of aikido train more
> "realistically" than others?
>
> Now before I get slammed for posting this, let me say that I realize that
> aikido is supposed to be much more than just the physical techniques. But
> the techniques and the time needed to make them really work are what I'm
> interested in right now.
>
> And finally, please, no posts like, "Aikido sucks!," or, "BJJ is *it*, man!"
> (Although I'm sure they're inevitable anyway.) I'd really like to hear what
> some of the perceptions out there are.
>
> Dan
>
Aiki1
(Chris L. Kuszmaul) wrote:
> Hmm, I have a story for YOU. So, I was training at a martial arts
> school whose chief instructor regularly wins these no holds barred
> type fights. Basically a world famous type guy. The week before, my
> sparring partner had refused to tap, even when his elbow had started
> to snap crackle and pop. Then, on the day in question, my (different)
> sparring partner was too busy cranking on my elbow to respond to the
> tap until *my* elbow had gone snap crackle and pop.
>
> Much to my amazement, I was still, more or less, functional. I checked
> out my elbow by doing ten quick pushups. The chief instructor then suggested
> I should do at least 15 pushups any time I did pushups. I explained
> that I was checking out an injury, not exercising. I then got out
> my wallet, ready to pay for the next month of training. The chief
> instructor mentioned that he, himself, could not *do* pushups, what with
> his messed up shoulder. I had just gone to the bank, had plenty of money
> in my wallet. Glanced down into it and said "Oops! I do not have money
> for you today after all." I walked out and never returned.
Best one yet!!!
I have one. Ok, once, a long time ago, while I was being persued by this
huge white whale......
terrell gibbs
:Perhaps "master" wasn't the best choice of words. Let me put it this
:way: Could you use aikido in a street self-defense situation (not an
:Uncle Fred situation) after only a few years of study? While some
:people have indeed done that, I get the feeling that it's not as
:commonly accomplished as it is with arts like boxing, for example. IMO
:aikido's philosophy is too passive, and therefore effective striking and
:kicking is not trained as much as it should be. This would give the
:aikidoka something to fall back on until he learns the traditional
:aikido aspects properly. Just my personal opinion; I still think aikido
:is a fine art.
It depends a lot on how it is taught. Some schools emphasize self-defense
more than others. I know a Tomiki aikido sensei who says that he has never
had a student above green belt fail to defend him/herself successfully on
the street--he has many students who are bouncers or cops, and use aikido
in their work. Another aikido instructor told me recently of a case in
which one of his less-proficient students was attacked by a guy with a
knife. The knife man did not survive the encounter.
Also, not all self-defense situations are equal. I'd take a little aikido
training over just about anything else (except maybe judo) if somebody is
trying to grab me. On the other hand, punching attacks take more aikido
skill to handle, and a beginner with a little sparring experience in a
punching art would probably do better than an aikido beginner with
comparable training time. Then again, if the attacker is much bigger, the
aikido beginner might well have a better chance than the beginner in a
striking art.
TFuru
Everybody keeps comparing martial arts to "street fighting", as if this was
the benchmark of effectiveness. This art must then be both widespread and
efficient; can someone refer me to a site with technique lists, grading
requirments, belt systems etc.?
T
BobSMan
>Well, when is it ever mastered? I've been in conversations with
>high-ranking Aikidoka who are discussing problems they have with certain
>elements of motion.
<SNIP>
>Honest story, but the point is we never master the art, period, because it
>is exploration and development. You can never enter perfectly every time,
>take the person's balance perfectly every time, be in the best position
>every time.
>
>I know for a fact however that several of these aikidoka have effectively
>used aikido in physical street situations.
You've made a point here with which I totally agree. It seems to me that
one of the biggest problems with this discussion is the notion that a certain
amount of training in some MA will make one "able to defend himself." Of
course this idea makes no real sense. Rather, one develops defensive ability
continuously over the time that one trains. Every time one trains in any MA,
ones ability to defend oneself increases somewhat, so that one will be more
likely to successfully defend oneself than one was previously. But noone ever
attains the ability to defend oneself successfully against every possible
attack by every possible attacker under every conceivable set of circumstances.
Even those who train strictly for self defense never reach this point. So I
ask those who posed the initial question: how much training do you need in your
art before you can defend yourself?
Bob Sisselman
ke...@my-dejanews.com
> Perhaps "master" wasn't the best choice of words. Let me put it this
> way: Could you use aikido in a street self-defense situation (not an
> Uncle Fred situation) after only a few years of study? While some
> people have indeed done that, I get the feeling that it's not as
> commonly accomplished as it is with arts like boxing, for example.
I dunno. If someone jumped me from behind I suspect a koshinage (hip throw)
would be way more effective than a punch.
IMO
> aikido's philosophy is too passive, and therefore effective striking and
> kicking is not trained as much as it should be.
Not to start a flame war here, but anyone who thinks aikido is passive doesn't
know enough about it to really be able to judge whether it's effective or not.
Katherine
Chris L. Kuszmaul
> .... Let me put it this
>way: Could you use aikido in a street self-defense situation (not an
>Uncle Fred situation) after only a few years of study? While some
>people have indeed done that, I get the feeling that it's not as
>aikido's philosophy is too passive, and therefore effective striking and
>aikidoka something to fall back on until he learns the traditional
>aikido aspects properly. Just my personal opinion; I still think aikido
>is a fine art.
>
Russ, the problem is that you have exactly the wrong take
about what is rational and common sense.
You are positioning the idea of 'street effective' as being
urgently needed and important in the daily life of your typical
person with access to the Internet. It is not, especially when
you consider the risk and expense required to become 'street
effective'.
As I have outlined in detail in the past, the risks of the
training may outweigh any benefit from street safety, and the
benefits of training intensively (more than once a week) certainly
stop accruing after a year or two.
Broadly speaking, the medicine is worse than the disease, and
if you do bother to cure the disease, you certainly want to reduce or
even eliminate the dosage.
Unless, of course, you are taking the medicine for some other
reasons...
Mehran Habibi
"Chris L. Kuszmaul" wrote:
> <snip>
> Russ, the problem is that you have exactly the wrong take
> about what is rational and common sense.
>
I'd like to hear this: it's not often that Russ is separated from common sense.
> You are positioning the idea of 'street effective' as being
> urgently needed and important in the daily life of your typical
> person with access to the Internet.
I don't believe that this is what Russ is advocating: Russ is, I believe, saying
that, to him, effectiveness while one is fighting is the main reason to study a
given MA. In this context, that effectiness(in his opinion and mine), are better
manifested by 'hands-on' arts. In terms of developing goodness, inner peace, etc.,
I think that people like Russ and I go to places outside the dojo for that stuff.
> It is not, especially when
> you consider the risk and expense required to become 'street
> effective'.
The 'risk' as you put it, is not so risk, depending on your temperament.
Personally, I _enjoy_ sparing full contact: other people enjoy jumping out of
airplane. It's simply a matter of choosing your psychosis.
>
> As I have outlined in detail in the past, the risks of the
> training may outweigh any benefit from street safety, and the
> benefits of training intensively (more than once a week) certainly
> stop accruing after a year or two.
>
I think that you have a very narrow definition of intensive: @ least, for healthy
young turks. And as for the risks: it is, among other things, a matter of how
important security is to you. Finally, After many years of what you might consider,
'intensive' training, I can guarantee that the benefits don't start to flower until
you put your back into it, as it were.
>
> Broadly speaking, the medicine is worse than the disease,
This is a cute turn of a phrase, but it's not really accurate in this case. It is,
however, very cute.
> andif you do bother to cure the disease, you certainly want to reduce or
> even eliminate the dosage.
>
> Unless, of course, you are taking the medicine for some other
> reasons...
Here's where your metaphor falls apart. Training isn't some disgusting potion for
most of us: Some people enjoy the intense training. hell, some of us even enjoy the
violence(that would be people like myself: I'm not speaking for Russ here). Others
enjoy the theater. While I'm not under the impression that my training somehow
makes my immune from harm, I embrace my training with all the passion that other
hobbyists bring to their pursuits, and I do so for the love of the activity itself,
rather then it's goals. To you, that may make me a barbarian: to me, it's just fun.
M
Aiki1
<rlr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Jeez, have ya ever noticed how .... defensive .... aikido people get?
No offence, but have you ever noticed that people who go off about Aikido
without ever having even taken it are the ones who say this?
George Szaszvari
>aikido's philosophy is too passive, and therefore effective striking and
>kicking is not trained as much as it should be. This would give the
>aikidoka something to fall back on until he learns the traditional
>aikido aspects properly. Just my personal opinion; I still think aikido
>is a fine art.
Like many others, I too used to be confused between "non-dissension"
in Aikido and "passivity"...but they ain't the same and Aikido wouldn't
be worth doing if it was passive. On the contrary, Aikido is extremely
positive [some might even say "aggressive", but that term can be very
misleading]...but this positive aspect of Aikido isn't about physical
forcefulness or overt aggression...it's about KI...aha! :-)
--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Russell L. Rader
<36F2A24B...@cis.ohio-state.edu>...
>
>
> "Chris L. Kuszmaul" wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > Russ, the problem is that you have exactly the wrong take
> > about what is rational and common sense.
> >
>
> I'd like to hear this: it's not often that Russ is separated from common
sense.
<snip argument about the logic of training for self-defense>
Thanks for the assist, Mehran. You are *THE MAN*. Damn, Jules, were going
to have to split that title again! ;-)
Russ
Russell L. Rader
> > way: Could you use aikido in a street self-defense situation (not an
> > Uncle Fred situation) after only a few years of study? While some
> > people have indeed done that, I get the feeling that it's not as
> > commonly accomplished as it is with arts like boxing, for example.
>
throw)
> would be way more effective than a punch.
I'm not "dissing" throws, joint locks or whatever. I have been studying
joint locks in my JKD grappling class, and I wish that my sifu would teach
more throws and takedowns than he does. I'm just saying that aikido is
IMHO somewhat overly specialized such that it underemphasizes punching and
kicking (but conversely, it's very good at what it does focus on).
Punching and kicking are very fundamental, and should be trained more than
aikido people (that I have seen and spoken to) do. And I know that aikido
people do have atemi and such, but that's not the same. The guy I know
from work who has the 3rd dan in aikido had to take a year of karate first,
so that he would know how to throw a half-way decent punch and kick. I got
the idea from a previous thread that this is unusual. IMHO even a year is
probably not enough.
> IMO
> > aikido's philosophy is too passive, and therefore effective striking
and
> > kicking is not trained as much as it should be.
>
> Not to start a flame war here, but anyone who thinks aikido is passive
doesn't
> know enough about it to really be able to judge whether it's effective or
not.
I meant that the *ideal* in aikido is to subdue your attacker without
harming him. And you also wait for the attack and meet the force, instead
of just punching and kicking away. I consider that passive, but maybe
that's not the best word to use. Maybe defensive is a better term.
Anyway, attempting to not hurt your attacker and not attacking directly by
punchy/kicky makes things much more difficult than it could be. All that
sen sen no sen stuff notwithstanding. That's all I was trying to say. For
example, imagine how much easier it would be to throw someone if you could
"soften them up" with a few *good* boxing combos to the face? What's that
line Chas uses? "Consider the throw your prize for winning the fight." or
something like that. It may not be as "artistic", but it's certainly
effective and *easier*. Therefore it can be mastered sooner.
Jeez, have ya ever noticed how .... defensive .... aikido people get? ;-)
Russ
Russell L. Rader
<7cu0d6$svs$1...@sun500.nas.nasa.gov>...> > .... Let me put it this
> >way: Could you use aikido in a street self-defense situation (not an
> >Uncle Fred situation) after only a few years of study? While some
> >people have indeed done that, I get the feeling that it's not as
> >aikido's philosophy is too passive, and therefore effective striking and
> >aikidoka something to fall back on until he learns the traditional
> >aikido aspects properly. Just my personal opinion; I still think aikido
> >is a fine art.
>
> about what is rational and common sense.
Have you been talking to my analyst? ;-)
> You are positioning the idea of 'street effective' as being
> urgently needed and important in the daily life of your typical
> person with access to the Internet. It is not, especially when
> you consider the risk and expense required to become 'street
> effective'.
No, actually, what I'm positing is that aikido does not focus enough on
kicks and punches. Getting in front of a big ol' bag and practicing
punches/kicks, proper form, combos, shadowboxing in front of a mirror to
practice keeping your hands up and not telegraphing, etc., is not
particularly risky. IMHO that alone would be helpful to low-level aikidoka
for self defense purposes, until they master the more subtle stuff.
Sparring would be even more helpful for developing street effectiveness, of
course, but that's a personal call as to whether you want to do it. It is
riskier, I'll admit. But it's the only true test of whether one's stuff is
the right stuff. I don't advocate excessive sparring, anyway. And I don't
know that sparring is any riskier than taking techniques in aikido. I've
seen some of the falls and rolls and stuff you guys do, and that shit would
scare me! I'm not sure it lives up to the non-violent ideal of aikido,
though.... :-P
I agree that martial arts is not something that is essential to my day to
day survival. But, since I'm taking it anyway, I might as well make it
useful. That's just my take on it, though. If you practice an art for
art's sake, or exercise, or whatever, that's fine with me. Self-defense is
my goal, but I agree that a cost/benefit analysis would not justify me
spending so much time and money on it. But I find it so interesting that
I'm not terribly concerned about the ROI (return on investment) being low.
I'm not an accountant.
Regarding the risks of becoming street effective, I believe that becoming
street effective (against unarmed attacks) is probably not as difficult as
becoming effective against a seasoned, trained fighter. Most street punks
don't have the discipline to master a martial art (although there are
exceptions and naturally talented ones). They would be more likely to use
knives (and guns), though. But I'm not sure that *any* martial art can
train a person to be ready for that in only a few years. Even mine. ;-)
And no martial art can defend reliably against guns... except for Sinanju
;-)
> As I have outlined in detail in the past, the risks of the
> training may outweigh any benefit from street safety, and the
> benefits of training intensively (more than once a week) certainly
> stop accruing after a year or two.
This week, I attended 7 hours of classes on three separate days, besides my
"homework", and I don't consider myself to have trained intensively. In
fact, I often feel guilty that I don't train enough, but I like to have a
social life too. And the training this week certainly wasn't risky, unless
you consider sore muscles risky.
I also believe that once a week is not enough to do *any* skill that you
actually intend to get good at, and stay good at. Especially if it
involves a fine sense of timing, positioning, reflexes and sensitivity like
aikido or a Filipino art. I would think that a short amount of practice
*every day* would be better for attaining and maintaining such skills, than
a once a week marathon practice session.
If the benefits of training stop accruing after a few years, then how come
people like Ueshiba were able to kick the butts of other aikidoka so
easily? And how can the old Filipino masters completely humiliate the
younger practitioners who should have faster reflexes? I just plain 100%
disagree with that statement.
> Broadly speaking, the medicine is worse than the disease, and
> if you do bother to cure the disease, you certainly want to reduce or
> even eliminate the dosage.
Thanks for the concern, but I'm not a masochist. I know when my body is
trying to tell me something, and I listen to it. I don't think I'm in any
danger of getting badly hurt by my current level of training, and I'm
ramping up slowly, instead of trying to kill myself. So even though I
don't have glaucoma, taking a little medicine for recreational purposes
won't kill me. Oops, wrong thread. ;-)
> Unless, of course, you are taking the medicine for some other
> reasons...
Hey, Doc, can I have a six-pack of that stuff, to go? ;-)
Russ
Russell L. Rader
<Aiki1-19039...@pool044-max1.ds17-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net>...
> In article <01be7293$67ce87e0$04013012@schroedinger>, "Russell L. Rader"
> <rlr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
I notice you snipped the smiley. Which denoted that that statement was a
*JOKE*. J.O.K.E. *JOKE* At least show me the courtesy to quote me in
context.
> No offence, but have you ever noticed that people who go off about Aikido
> without ever having even taken it are the ones who say this?
So you're saying that if I took aikido, I'd find that it would focus more
on punches and kicks, despite everything I've heard, read and seen to the
contrary? Including talking to a third dan in aikido, whose common sense
and honesty I trust, who says that it's not the best art for self-defense.
And you're saying that I would find aikido easier to master than other
martial arts, despite the fact that afforementioned third dan has been
practicing for eighteen years?
Besides, if I had to know something about a subject to talk about it, that
would take all the fun out of the Usenet.
Russ
Russell L. Rader
<7cr8f2$q7e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> Russ wrote:
>
> > Perhaps "master" wasn't the best choice of words. Let me put it this
> > way: Could you use aikido in a street self-defense situation (not an
> > Uncle Fred situation) after only a few years of study? While some
> > people have indeed done that, I get the feeling that it's not as
> > commonly accomplished as it is with arts like boxing, for example. IMO
> > aikido's philosophy is too passive, and therefore effective striking
and
> > kicking is not trained as much as it should be. This would give the
> > aikidoka something to fall back on until he learns the traditional
> > aikido aspects properly. Just my personal opinion; I still think
aikido
> > is a fine art.
>
>
> Much of what is learned in the first years of any martial
> art is what you might call 'body awareness'. You learn
> how you feel when you do certain things, to a level of
> detail that you'd never even considered before. Balance,
> fluidity, precision in movement, and footwork and body
> work that you'd never really consider on your own gets
> incorporated into your mental processes.
Fair enough.
> This is true of most any martial art; the differences
> after that lie (well, the ones germaine to this conversation
> anyway) in what gets taught at what time.
Or to what degree. Aikido short-changes punching and kicking training
IMHO.
> Arnis
> jumps right into weapons and quick easy practical methods
> of doing others harm.
OK, I'll come right out and say it. That means arnis is *better*, if your
goal is fast, effective self-defense ability, without worrying whether you
hurt the other guy in the process, and assuming you have a stick handy. If
your goal is just to learn the art for art's sake, then this doesn't apply,
of course. Or if your long-term goal is to defend yourself unarmed without
harming your attacker, and fast effectiveness is not a concern, then aikido
is better. It depends on your goals. Different arts are better for
different goals.
> From that point of view, I don't disagree with you
> about the effectiveness and sheer joy of philipino
> martial arts; but I would like to point out that 'in
> the street' someone learning aikido is still ahead
> of the average yahoo in sheer body awareness and mental
> control during the conflict. When grabbed, they will
> generally have advantages in balance; when punched at
> they will still know basic evasion technique.
Agreed. I've never said that aikido is worthless. In fact, I'd like to
try it out some day. But first things first. Besides that, I was
comparing a newbie (a year or two) aikidoka to a newbie in a punchy/kicky
art, not the average schmuck.
> I suppose what I'm saying is that even Aikidoka in
> the first couple of years learn quite a bit more about
> dealing with real conflict than they knew before they
> trained, whether they know it or not. So yes, I think
> you could say that you can use Aikido in a 'street
> situation' in the first couple of years. Whether you
> can pull off a clean throw or what have you is another
> question, but hardly the requirement.
I agree, but that was not what I was talking about. I was saying that a
two-year student of aikido might not do as well as a two-year student of
karate, boxing, JKD, Shaolin kung fu, TKD, or whatever other chop-socky
type art you care to name.
Russ
BobSMan
Russ:
I think you've just punched a big hole in the idea that Aikido takes
longer to learn to be effective than other arts. Viz:
>The guy I know
>from work who has the 3rd dan in aikido had to take a year of karate first,
>so that he would know how to throw a half-way decent punch and kick. I got
>the idea from a previous thread that this is unusual. IMHO even a year is
>probably not enough.
If it does indeed take more than a year to learn to punch and/or kick
effectively, than I would suggest that one would take quite as long to learn
"effective self defense" through the study of Karate as it would through
Aikido.
Bob Sisselman
Aiki1
<rlr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > Jeez, have ya ever noticed how .... defensive .... aikido people get?
>
> I notice you snipped the smiley. Which denoted that that statement was a
> *JOKE*. J.O.K.E. *JOKE* At least show me the courtesy to quote me in
> context.
I was joking back!.... :)
> > No offence, but have you ever noticed that people who go off about Aikido
> > without ever having even taken it are the ones who say this?
>
> So you're saying that if I took aikido, I'd find that it would focus more
> on punches and kicks, despite everything I've heard, read and seen to the
> contrary? Including talking to a third dan in aikido, whose common sense
> and honesty I trust, who says that it's not the best art for self-defense.
> And you're saying that I would find aikido easier to master than other
> martial arts, despite the fact that afforementioned third dan has been
> practicing for eighteen years?
In all seriousness, if you took Aikido you'd know for yourself, which is a
lot different that just conjecture, and you'd also find out that Aikido is
taught so differently at different dojo that it really is hard to
generalize these days. Also, just because one person says that Aikido not
the best art for self-defense doesn't mean anything - to me it is a very
powerful art for self-defense, so you're going on a 1-1 opinion now.... :)
Also, who knows how you would find Aikido to be in terms of ease of
learning.... but right now you're just guessing, or more accuratly you're
taking the word of one person and assuming it to be universal truth - I
have been doing and teaching Aikido for 17 years and have a very different
experience, and am also a third dan, so that makes your friend right?
Nope.
Aiki1
<rlr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Aikido short-changes punching and kicking training
> IMHO.
In a sense, it does. So what. The premise of the art is not about kickong
and punching per se. You seem to think that means everything in terms of
effectiveness on the street etc.... not in My experience, in fact there
are other skills that are FAR more important in terms of street survival.
ke...@my-dejanews.com
> > I dunno. If someone jumped me from behind I suspect a koshinage (hip
> throw)
> > would be way more effective than a punch.
>
> I'm not "dissing" throws, joint locks or whatever. I have been studying
> joint locks in my JKD grappling class, and I wish that my sifu would teach
> more throws and takedowns than he does. I'm just saying that aikido is
> IMHO somewhat overly specialized such that it underemphasizes punching and
> kicking (but conversely, it's very good at what it does focus on).
All arts emphasize and de-emphasize different things. Aikido emphasizes
punching and kicking less than karate does. Karate emphasizes takedowns and
throws less than aikido does. For every Real Situation (tm) that favors
punching and kicking, I can list another that favors throws. Different people
encounter different situations, and need different arts to deal with them.
> Punching and kicking are very fundamental, and should be trained more than
> aikido people (that I have seen and spoken to) do. And I know that aikido
> people do have atemi and such, but that's not the same. The guy I know
> from work who has the 3rd dan in aikido had to take a year of karate first,
> so that he would know how to throw a half-way decent punch and kick. I got
> the idea from a previous thread that this is unusual. IMHO even a year is
> probably not enough.
Throws and takedowns are very fundamental, and should be trained more than
karate people (that I have seen and spoken to) do. And I know that karate
people do have takedowns, but that's not the same.... Are you starting to see
my point here?
>
> > IMO
> > > aikido's philosophy is too passive, and therefore effective striking
> and
> > > kicking is not trained as much as it should be.
> >
> > Not to start a flame war here, but anyone who thinks aikido is passive
> doesn't
> > know enough about it to really be able to judge whether it's effective or
> not.
>
> I meant that the *ideal* in aikido is to subdue your attacker without
> harming him. And you also wait for the attack and meet the force, instead
> of just punching and kicking away. I consider that passive, but maybe
> that's not the best word to use. Maybe defensive is a better term.
Neither term is very good. For starters, you DO NOT "wait for the attack and
meet the force." In the *ideal* situation, "when my partner attacks, my sword
is already resting at his throat or I've already cut him from behind (M.
Ueshiba)." I'm not that good yet, but I do know that if I passively wait for
the attack, I have *no* chance.
> Anyway, attempting to not hurt your attacker and not attacking directly by
> punchy/kicky makes things much more difficult than it could be. All that
> sen sen no sen stuff notwithstanding. That's all I was trying to say. For
> example, imagine how much easier it would be to throw someone if you could
> "soften them up" with a few *good* boxing combos to the face?
Sure. He (average size man, not even particularly huge) outweighs me by
50-100 pounds or more, is 6" or more taller than me, and has the associated
superiority in upper body strength. I'm going to allow him to regain his
balance while I make him even madder by attempting to "soften him up" with
punches? I don't think so. It may work for you, but it's not gonna work
nearly as well for me as getting in under his center of gravity and using his
own momentum to tip him over.
Russell L. Rader
> In article <01be72b7$61fe7400$04013012@schroedinger>, "Russell L. Rader"
> <rlr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Aikido short-changes punching and kicking training
> > IMHO.
>
> In a sense, it does. So what. The premise of the art is not about kickong
> and punching per se. You seem to think that means everything in terms of
> effectiveness on the street etc.... not in My experience, in fact there
> are other skills that are FAR more important in terms of street survival.
I've always freely admitted that I have no street experience, so maybe
you're right. But I learn joint locks, takedowns and such in my grappling
class. And I'm not saying that punch/kick is the answer to every question.
Or even most questions. All I'm saying is that it's easier, and people
should learn it, *if* thier goal is fast, effective self-defense. If a new
student's goal is is not what mine is, then this is all moot. Or if a
person is already experienced, such as yourself, again the question is
moot. Let me put it this way: I did not consider the aikido strategy to
be the correct one for me, considering my goals. And although it's true
that I've never taken aikido, I researched a lot of arts including aikido,
talked to an aikidoka that I know, and signed up for a month of hapkido
classes before I decided it wasn't for me (and I know hapkido and aikido
aren't the same, but they are similar). So I'm not just talking out my
butt here.
Russ
ke...@my-dejanews.com
"Russell L. Rader" <rlr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > I suppose what I'm saying is that even Aikidoka in
> > the first couple of years learn quite a bit more about
> > dealing with real conflict than they knew before they
> > trained, whether they know it or not. So yes, I think
> > you could say that you can use Aikido in a 'street
> > situation' in the first couple of years. Whether you
> > can pull off a clean throw or what have you is another
> > question, but hardly the requirement.
>
> I agree, but that was not what I was talking about. I was saying that a
> two-year student of aikido might not do as well as a two-year student of
> karate, boxing, JKD, Shaolin kung fu, TKD, or whatever other chop-socky
> type art you care to name.
But what's the situation? As I said in a previous note, I'm sure I could name
a situation that favors throws for every one you can name that favors punches
and kicks. For starters, what is the two-year karate student's response to
having both arms grabbed from behind?
Russell L. Rader
<Aiki1-20039...@pool002-max2.ds19-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net>...
> <rlr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Jeez, have ya ever noticed how .... defensive .... aikido people
get?
> >
> > I notice you snipped the smiley. Which denoted that that statement was
a
> > *JOKE*. J.O.K.E. *JOKE* At least show me the courtesy to quote me in
> > context.
>
> I was joking back!.... :)
Fair enough. Sorry I got touchy.
> > > No offence, but have you ever noticed that people who go off about
Aikido
> > > without ever having even taken it are the ones who say this?
> >
> > So you're saying that if I took aikido, I'd find that it would focus
more
> > on punches and kicks, despite everything I've heard, read and seen to
the
> > contrary? Including talking to a third dan in aikido, whose common
sense
> > and honesty I trust, who says that it's not the best art for
self-defense.
> > And you're saying that I would find aikido easier to master than other
> > martial arts, despite the fact that afforementioned third dan has been
> > practicing for eighteen years?
>
> In all seriousness, if you took Aikido you'd know for yourself <snip>
I'd like to take aikido. I'd like to take every martial art in existence,
learn how relativity and quantum physics *really* work, learn how to play
five or six musical instruments, and in my off hours romance a super-model
or six. But I just don't have the time, so I have to plan a general
strategy according to my goals. My strategy may not be the best, but it's
the one I've picked, and I'm going to give it some time before I reassess
it. And my strategy is to focus more on punches and kicks than aikido
does.
Seriously, I have nothing against aikido, I'm just discussing what I
perceive to be a weakness in it. Every art has weaknesses, including the
ones I'm studying now. For example, I haven't learned *any* throws yet,
and only a few takedowns from silat (the takedown were *really* nifty
though ;-)).
Russ
Russ
Russell L. Rader
<01be72dd$83787100$LocalHost@nippon>...
>
> Russell L. Rader <rlr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> <01be728f$51d29e80$04013012@schroedinger>...
> >
> > Thanks for the assist, Mehran. You are *THE MAN*. Damn, Jules, were
going
> > to have to split that title again! ;-)
>
>
> I should know... hehehe. ;-)
>
> Wedding announcement will follow shortly...
Jeez... Why don't you, Jules, Mehran and Caterbro just get a room and work
out the details in private. You fickle little tramp, you! ;-) <shields
up! running for cover!>
> ~Murphy ...the future "Just Murphy"
Just Murphy..... hehehehehe.
Russ
Russell L. Rader
<19990320073218...@ng39.aol.com>...
> "Russell L. Rader" <rlr...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> Russ:
>
> I think you've just punched a big hole in the idea that Aikido takes
> longer to learn to be effective than other arts. Viz:
>
> >from work who has the 3rd dan in aikido had to take a year of karate
first,
> >so that he would know how to throw a half-way decent punch and kick. I
got
> >the idea from a previous thread that this is unusual. IMHO even a year
is
> >probably not enough.
>
> effectively, than I would suggest that one would take quite as long to
learn
> "effective self defense" through the study of Karate as it would through
> Aikido.
I have seen (and felt) good karate first-hand, and have a high standard for
"half-way decent", I guess. I would also have a high standard for
"half-way decent" aikido. I will gladly concede that I *might* be wrong
about this, for some aikido dojos or aikidoka. Street-effectiveness is a
hard thing to measure objectively, even if you were to go out on the street
and as scientifically as possible study it. But judging from my
(admittedly very limited) knowledge of joint locks, holds, takedowns, etc.,
I feel that in the heat of the moment it would be very difficult to pull
off such a technique against a "half-way decent" attacker (one that does
not just present you his wrist). In situations where adrenalin is flowing,
it is difficult to perform fine motor control functions, and more difficult
to think about anything complicated (and you shouldn't try to think in a
fight anyway, it's too slow). I think that throws, locks, etc., are more
complicated than punches and kicks, and use more fine motor functions
(hands as opposed to arms/legs). In order to not think, just do, you have
to drill your actions to the point where they are second nature. Judging
from my (again admittedly limited) knowledge, I would think that good
punching/kicking would be much simpler to drill into second nature status
than locks, throws and such.
Russ
"But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."
"And I am OUTTA here!"
- Dennis Miller
Russell L. Rader
> In article <01be7293$67ce87e0$04013012@schroedinger>,
> "Russell L. Rader" <rlr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > ke...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<7cu2vh$air$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> > > I dunno. If someone jumped me from behind I suspect a koshinage (hip
> > throw)
> > > would be way more effective than a punch.
> >
> > I'm not "dissing" throws, joint locks or whatever. I have been
studying
> > joint locks in my JKD grappling class, and I wish that my sifu would
teach
> > more throws and takedowns than he does. I'm just saying that aikido is
> > IMHO somewhat overly specialized such that it underemphasizes punching
and
> > kicking (but conversely, it's very good at what it does focus on).
>
> All arts emphasize and de-emphasize different things. Aikido emphasizes
> punching and kicking less than karate does. Karate emphasizes takedowns
and
> throws less than aikido does. For every Real Situation (tm) that favors
> punching and kicking, I can list another that favors throws. Different
people
> encounter different situations, and need different arts to deal with
them.
True enough. I'd like to learn more about throwing, falling and rolling
than I have so far. But I think punching and kicking should come first,
then throws and joint locks, etc. But that's just me.
> > Punching and kicking are very fundamental, and should be trained more
than
> > aikido people (that I have seen and spoken to) do. And I know that
aikido
> > people do have atemi and such, but that's not the same. The guy I know
> > from work who has the 3rd dan in aikido had to take a year of karate
first,
> > so that he would know how to throw a half-way decent punch and kick. I
got
> > the idea from a previous thread that this is unusual. IMHO even a year
is
> > probably not enough.
>
> Throws and takedowns are very fundamental, and should be trained more
than
> karate people (that I have seen and spoken to) do. And I know that karate
> people do have takedowns, but that's not the same.... Are you starting to
see
> my point here?
I've never thought that throws or takedowns are a bad thing. But effective
punching and kicking is IMO a great, *easy and effective* way to set up
throws or takedowns, and should be focused on more than aikido people do.
And being as they would be the setup for the throw/takedown, they should be
taught first.
> > > IMO
> > > > aikido's philosophy is too passive, and therefore effective
striking
> > and
> > > > kicking is not trained as much as it should be.
> > >
> > > Not to start a flame war here, but anyone who thinks aikido is
passive
> > doesn't
> > > know enough about it to really be able to judge whether it's
effective or
> > not.
> >
> > I meant that the *ideal* in aikido is to subdue your attacker without
> > harming him. And you also wait for the attack and meet the force,
instead
> > of just punching and kicking away. I consider that passive, but maybe
> > that's not the best word to use. Maybe defensive is a better term.
>
> Neither term is very good. For starters, you DO NOT "wait for the attack
and
> meet the force." In the *ideal* situation, "when my partner attacks, my
sword
> is already resting at his throat or I've already cut him from behind (M.
> Ueshiba)." I'm not that good yet, but I do know that if I passively wait
for
> the attack, I have *no* chance.
I thought that meeting and blending with the force of the attack is what
aiki is all about. And you can't blend with the attack if there isn't one.
Aikido is not "proactive" enough for my taste, to use a current buzzword.
> > Anyway, attempting to not hurt your attacker and not attacking directly
by
> > punchy/kicky makes things much more difficult than it could be. All
that
> > sen sen no sen stuff notwithstanding. That's all I was trying to say.
For
> > example, imagine how much easier it would be to throw someone if you
could
> > "soften them up" with a few *good* boxing combos to the face?
>
> Sure. He (average size man, not even particularly huge) outweighs me by
> 50-100 pounds or more, is 6" or more taller than me, and has the
associated
> superiority in upper body strength. I'm going to allow him to regain his
> balance while I make him even madder by attempting to "soften him up"
with
> punches? I don't think so. It may work for you, but it's not gonna work
> nearly as well for me as getting in under his center of gravity and using
his
> own momentum to tip him over.
You're assuming that Mr. Big starts off out of balance. And if he is out
of balance, then of course, you should take advantage of that fact. But
what if this isn't so? Atemi is used as a tactic for unbalancing your foe,
correct? I would consider that a person who is well-trained in punching
and kicking could use that as a sort of "super-atemi". How would a man
regain his balance while being pelted with well-placed hard punches to the
face and kicks to the legs? If anything, he would be more likely to lose
his balance and composure, wouldn't he? I am assuming, I admit, that most
aikido dojos don't train specifically in delivering atemi, and that it's
just something ancillary to the main techniques that you are studying.
This isn't enough to develop *good* punches or kicks IMO. Mr. Big might be
able to laugh off a weak atemi from a smaller person. But if you are
trained to deliver good boxing, karate or Wing Chun punches/strikes, then
that might be something he can't just laugh off. Of course you don't want
to stand there and trade punches with him. I'm talking about using punches
and kicks as "super-atemi" to supplement your aikido. Do you see my point,
even if you don't agree with it?
Russ
Russell L. Rader
> In article <01be72b7$61fe7400$04013012@schroedinger>,
> > > the first couple of years learn quite a bit more about
> > > dealing with real conflict than they knew before they
> > > trained, whether they know it or not. So yes, I think
> > > you could say that you can use Aikido in a 'street
> > > situation' in the first couple of years. Whether you
> > > can pull off a clean throw or what have you is another
> > > question, but hardly the requirement.
> >
> > I agree, but that was not what I was talking about. I was saying that
a
> > two-year student of aikido might not do as well as a two-year student
of
> > karate, boxing, JKD, Shaolin kung fu, TKD, or whatever other chop-socky
> > type art you care to name.
>
> But what's the situation? As I said in a previous note, I'm sure I could
name
> a situation that favors throws for every one you can name that favors
punches
> and kicks. For starters, what is the two-year karate student's response
to
> having both arms grabbed from behind?
How about a head butt to the attacker's face?
Many karate dojos teach basic self-defense counters early on, don't they?
Of course, no art is perfect for every situation. What would an aikidoka
do if the attacker manages to put her into a groundfighing situation?
That's also a very real self-defense possibility, especially for women in
rape situations.
Russ
"If someone grabs you, hit him!"
- Bruce Lee
storys
BobSMan wrote in message <19990319081134...@ng-fr1.aol.com>...
> Even those who train strictly for self defense never reach this point. So
I
>ask those who posed the initial question: how much training do you need in
your
>art before you can defend yourself?
>
>Bob Sisselman
>
I didn't pose it first but the answer though a rather unsatisfactory one
as are many answers in life ) is that it varies according to the individual
person. I know yellow belts who could do quite well & senior belts who'd
need help. Depends on the person.
.......Tom......
storys
peace, etc.,
>I think that people like Russ and I go to places outside the dojo for that
stuff.
>
But wopuld you turn it down if it came to you in the dojo? I don't really
think so. I go to the dojo first to get fit. Secondly I'm looking to stay
fit. Thirdly It's fun & I'm having a blast. I come out feeling good & at
peace with myself & the whole blessed world. This can't be bad.
>Personally, I _enjoy_ sparing full contact: other people enjoy jumping out
of
>airplane. It's simply a matter of choosing your psychosis.
>
Yep I agree 112% Never could see the reason for jumping out of a perfectly
good airplane!
>Finally, After many years of what you might consider,
>'intensive' training, I can guarantee that the benefits don't start to
flower until
>you put your back into it, as it were.
>
M.... I'm scared!! I train a minimum of four times weekly & as many as
seven. Should I be termed obsessed? I really think I'm just having fun!
>Here's where your metaphor falls apart. Training isn't some disgusting
potion for
>most of us: Some people enjoy the intense training. hell, some of us even
enjoy the
>violence(that would be people like myself: I'm not speaking for Russ here).
Others
>enjoy the theater.
Count me one of these. I like training. I like the side benefits. One I get
is training with my son. Sorry fellas but if I get to spend time with my
family by going to the dojo then I'm there!
.......Tom......
storys
ke...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <7cu2vh$air$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Not to start a flame war here, but anyone who thinks aikido is passive
doesn't
>know enough about it to really be able to judge whether it's effective or
not.
>
>
Remember that wrist throw that we discussed a while back? does the fact that
someone has to throw the punch first make Aikido passive? I don't think so.
It may make the attacker appear rather dumb as he is the author of his own
misfortune but passive no I don't think so.
......Tom......
immortal
walter kopitov (ro...@bestweb.net) wrote:
: immortal wrote in message <7cqotj$ki6$2...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>...
: >: First off, I'm not an expert at any martial art, much less aikido. But
: >: I know a third dan in aikido, who's been practicing for 18 years, who
: >: feels that until it is mastered, it's not the best art for
: >: self-defense.
: >
: Why is it that some people who never trained in MA feel very confident it
: their ability though they have never gotten into a fight?
Please be careful who you quote. I did not say this, notice the > and the
:. That's two quotes deep.
Best Regards,
Justin
Aiki1
<rlr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I thought that meeting and blending with the force of the attack is what
> aiki is all about. And you can't blend with the attack if there isn't one.
> Aikido is not "proactive" enough for my taste, to use a current buzzword.
Common misconceptions, across the board. :)
Jarle Thorsen
>For starters, what is the two-year karate student's
>response to having both arms grabbed from behind?
A kick to the opponents knee ?
--
Jarle Thorsen
Instructor in Tenshin Dojo, Genbukan Ninpo
http://www.emsoy.com/ninpo/
Jarle Thorsen
>> Throws and takedowns are very fundamental, and should be trained more
>than
>> karate people (that I have seen and spoken to) do. And I know that
>> karate people do have takedowns, but that's not the same.... Are you
>> starting to
>see
>> my point here?
>I've never thought that throws or takedowns are a bad thing. But
>effective punching and kicking is IMO a great, *easy and effective* way to
>set up throws or takedowns, and should be focused on more than aikido
>people do. And being as they would be the setup for the throw/takedown,
>they should be taught first.
*EXACTLY!* Kicking/striking should be a fundamental part of any MA. And it
should, as you say be used to setup for a throw/lock/whatever (if the
striking/kicking isn't enough) But I guess we are getting pretty close to a
similar thread that seemed to go on for ever, so I guess I'll just en my
posting here :)
Aiki1
<rlr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I'd like to take aikido.
I teach it....
> I'd like to take every martial art in existence,
I've studied about 5 so far....
> learn how relativity and quantum physics *really* work,
I can tell you a fair amount about that....
>learn how to play
> five or six musical instruments,
I play four or five....
> and in my off hours romance a super-model
> or six.
Been there done that too.... well, not a well-known one, but boy oh boy
you should have seen her....
> But I just don't have the time, so I have to plan a general
> strategy according to my goals.
True.... actually my point is people make statements about Aikido without
the experience....
> My strategy may not be the best, but it's
> the one I've picked, and I'm going to give it some time before I reassess
> it. And my strategy is to focus more on punches and kicks than aikido
> does.
Cool. Let me ask you a question though - ever hit anyone with your closed
fist, i.e., have you ever punched anyone? :)
storys
name
>a situation that favors throws for every one you can name that favors
punches
>having both arms grabbed from behind?
>
>
At first blush a foot stomp followed by any number of throws or blows. My
particular favourite would involve a scoop of one of his harms that he has
so graciously offered me followed by an empi strike followed by a hip toss
down. The empi is just because such an approach would have ticked me off.
.....Tom......
storys
off
>balance, how is he managing to attack me?
>
Rather easily. We're taught several chokes etc. from front & rear & side.
Most involve putting your opponent off balance but your own balance is left
proper.
........Tom.........
ke...@my-dejanews.com
> (admittedly very limited) knowledge of joint locks, holds, takedowns, etc.,
> I feel that in the heat of the moment it would be very difficult to pull
> off such a technique against a "half-way decent" attacker (one that does
> not just present you his wrist).
You don't need a joint lock in order to execute a throw. And if he grabs or
strikes you, then he's just given you his wrist (or ankle, for kicks) whether
he wants to or not. That's the whole point.
In situations where adrenalin is flowing,
> it is difficult to perform fine motor control functions, and more difficult
> to think about anything complicated (and you shouldn't try to think in a
> fight anyway, it's too slow). I think that throws, locks, etc., are more
> complicated than punches and kicks, and use more fine motor functions
> (hands as opposed to arms/legs).
If you are executing an aikido technique using fine motor functions, you are
doing it wrong. Controlling balance (large muscle movements) is far more
important than the precise details of your grip (fine motor functions). More
often than not, I find the joint lock just sort of presents itself *after* the
attacker is already off balance.
ke...@my-dejanews.com
"Russell L. Rader" <rlr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > But what's the situation? As I said in a previous note, I'm sure I could
> name
> > a situation that favors throws for every one you can name that favors
> punches
> > and kicks. For starters, what is the two-year karate student's response
> to
> > having both arms grabbed from behind?
>
> How about a head butt to the attacker's face?
Only works if the attacker is roughly the same height. And a head butt at an
attacker behind you seems to me like a good way to get pulled over backward
anyway.
>
> Many karate dojos teach basic self-defense counters early on, don't they?
>
> Of course, no art is perfect for every situation.
But I'm not the one claiming otherwise. I'm just claiming that there are just
as many situations where aikido is better as there are situations where
punching is better.
What would an aikidoka
> do if the attacker manages to put her into a groundfighing situation?
> That's also a very real self-defense possibility, especially for women in
> rape situations.
Well, first off taking down an aikidoka without allowing them to escape is a
pretty big "if." Second, while aikido doesn't include true grappling, it does
include lots of suwariwaza (kneeling) techniques, and a fair number of pin
reversals to suwariwaza techniques. I believe Aiki1 has trained with some
pretty senior BJJ folks and can probably discuss this in more detail than I
can.
ke...@my-dejanews.com
"Russell L. Rader" <rlr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> True enough. I'd like to learn more about throwing, falling and rolling
> than I have so far. But I think punching and kicking should come first,
> then throws and joint locks, etc. But that's just me.
To each their own.
> > > I meant that the *ideal* in aikido is to subdue your attacker without
> > > harming him. And you also wait for the attack and meet the force,
> instead
> > > of just punching and kicking away. I consider that passive, but maybe
> > > that's not the best word to use. Maybe defensive is a better term.
> >
> > Neither term is very good. For starters, you DO NOT "wait for the attack
> and
> > meet the force." In the *ideal* situation, "when my partner attacks, my
> sword
> > is already resting at his throat or I've already cut him from behind (M.
> > Ueshiba)." I'm not that good yet, but I do know that if I passively wait
> for
> > the attack, I have *no* chance.
>
> I thought that meeting and blending with the force of the attack is what
> aiki is all about. And you can't blend with the attack if there isn't one.
But if there is no attack, and no intent to attack, then there is no threat
and no need to use any technique at all.
> > > Anyway, attempting to not hurt your attacker and not attacking directly
> by
> > > punchy/kicky makes things much more difficult than it could be. All
> that
> > > sen sen no sen stuff notwithstanding. That's all I was trying to say.
> For
> > > example, imagine how much easier it would be to throw someone if you
> could
> > > "soften them up" with a few *good* boxing combos to the face?
> >
> > Sure. He (average size man, not even particularly huge) outweighs me by
> > 50-100 pounds or more, is 6" or more taller than me, and has the
> associated
> > superiority in upper body strength. I'm going to allow him to regain his
> > balance while I make him even madder by attempting to "soften him up"
> with
> > punches? I don't think so. It may work for you, but it's not gonna work
> > nearly as well for me as getting in under his center of gravity and using
> his
> > own momentum to tip him over.
>
> You're assuming that Mr. Big starts off out of balance. And if he is out
> of balance, then of course, you should take advantage of that fact. But
> what if this isn't so?
If he's not off balance, and has no energy that I can redirect to lead him off
balance, how is he managing to attack me?
Atemi is used as a tactic for unbalancing your foe,
> correct? I would consider that a person who is well-trained in punching
> and kicking could use that as a sort of "super-atemi". How would a man
> regain his balance while being pelted with well-placed hard punches to the
> face and kicks to the legs? If anything, he would be more likely to lose
> his balance and composure, wouldn't he?
Composure, yes. See my comment about making him mad. Balance not necessarily.
Perhaps Mehran can address just exactly how significant a 100 lb weight
difference is between two equally skilled boxers?
I am assuming, I admit, that most
> aikido dojos don't train specifically in delivering atemi, and that it's
> just something ancillary to the main techniques that you are studying.
> This isn't enough to develop *good* punches or kicks IMO. Mr. Big might be
> able to laugh off a weak atemi from a smaller person. But if you are
> trained to deliver good boxing, karate or Wing Chun punches/strikes, then
> that might be something he can't just laugh off. Of course you don't want
> to stand there and trade punches with him. I'm talking about using punches
> and kicks as "super-atemi" to supplement your aikido. Do you see my point,
> even if you don't agree with it?
Yes, I see your point. I question how realistic it is in execution, given the
extreme reach difference between me and the 6' tall men I know. But then, I
guess that's why I study aikido.
BobSMan
>For starters, what is the two-year karate student's response to
>>having both arms grabbed from behind?
>>
>>Katherine
>>
>
>At first blush a foot stomp followed by any number of throws or blows. My
>particular favourite would involve a scoop of one of his harms that he has
>so graciously offered me followed by an empi strike followed by a hip toss
>down. The empi is just because such an approach would have ticked me off.
>
>.....Tom......
>
>
And now, having read this along with a few other suggestions (including
head butts, kicks to the knee, etc.) allow me to point something out here.
I've practiced this attack with several Karate students I know (some with as
much as 5 years experience) and the result is always the same. As they begin
the strike, they are dropped to the ground with both arms tied up, and usually
locked, behing the back. Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that the two
hand grip from behind strongly disrupts the defender's balance. If the attack
is well executed, thew defender will be forced to blend with the attacker's
force before he can expect to apply any sort of defense whatsoever.
Bob Sisselman
BobSMan
>I didn't pose it first but the answer though a rather unsatisfactory one
> as are many answers in life ) is that it varies according to the individual
>person. I know yellow belts who could do quite well & senior belts who'd
>need help. Depends on the person.
And in this we are in complete agreement. The question of which art
develops defensive capability most quickly has no real validity in and of
itself. The answer has far more to do with the individual than with the art
being studied. Having said this however, I will concede that some individuals
do seem to have a greater affinity for some arts than for others. But as this
can go both ways it does not change the basic fact that no art can really be
said to give defensive ability faster than another.
Bob Sisselman
Mehran Habibi
storys wrote:
> <snip><snip>M.... I'm scared!! I train a minimum of four times weekly & as
> many as
> seven. Should I be termed obsessed? I really think I'm just having fun!
>
You're obsessed, you fun lovin' psycho ;-)
M
ke...@my-dejanews.com
"storys" <sto...@execulink.com> wrote:
> >If he's not off balance, and has no energy that I can redirect to lead him
> off
> >balance, how is he managing to attack me?
> >
>
> Most involve putting your opponent off balance but your own balance is left
> proper.
But how do you get from somewhere out of range to being in position for the
choke without shifting your balance or having redirectable energy?
This gets back to the ongoing question about when a technique begins. The
aikido view is that it begins as soon as someone enters your personal space
(however large your personal bubble might be) with hostile intent. The
anti-aikido critics seem to believe (incorrectly) that aikido technique
doesn't begin until the guy has you stuck in a choke hold. *If* this were
true, then I would completely agree with all the complaints about aikido's
passivity and ineffectiveness, but it isn't true.
ke...@my-dejanews.com
"storys" <sto...@execulink.com> wrote:
> >But what's the situation? As I said in a previous note, I'm sure I could
> name
> >a situation that favors throws for every one you can name that favors
> punches
> >having both arms grabbed from behind?
> >
> >Katherine
> >
>
> At first blush a foot stomp followed by any number of throws or blows. My
> particular favourite would involve a scoop of one of his harms that he has
> so graciously offered me followed by an empi strike followed by a hip toss
> down. The empi is just because such an approach would have ticked me off.
Would a two-year karate student know hip tosses?
M Barnard
<01be7308$06363120$04013012@schroedinger>...
>it. And my strategy is to focus more on punches and kicks than aikido
>does.
>
>perceive to be a weakness in it. Every art has weaknesses, including the
>ones I'm studying now. For example, I haven't learned *any* throws yet,
>and only a few takedowns from silat (the takedown were *really* nifty
>though ;-)).
My perspective is that if you want to take completely destabilize yourself
by taking one or both of your feet off of the ground and attempting to kick,
more power to you. As you sail or spin past the aikidoka, remember that
this is your strategy. When you land on your back, remember that this is
your strategy. When you are immobilized with a painful joint lock, remember
that this is your strategy.
The best survival mechanism on the street is to not get into fights at all.
Training in aikido emphasizes the non-aggression which will prevent fights.
Training in kicking and punching emphasizes the aggression which will cause
fights. An aikidoka in a threatening situation will not escalate the
situation unless aggression is obvious. Kicking and punching training give
little choice except escalation.
You're obviously not interested in aikido because you wish to escalate
conflicts into fights and then do harm to others. Fair enough, but I'd bet
serious money the average aikidoka will walk away unscathed from a lot more
situations than you will.
Have fun walking through the dangerous parts of town looking to pick fights.
M
--
----
m_ba...@yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------
--------
If androids dream of electric sheep, what do electric sheep dream of?
Mehran Habibi
M Barnard wrote:
> <snip arrogant progagenda> As you sail or spin past the aikidoka, remember
> that
> this is your strategy. When you land on your back, remember that this is
> your strategy. When you are immobilized with a painful joint lock, remember
> that this is your strategy.
>
What about when I knock 'em on his ass while he's fidgeting with my wrist?
Should I remember that it was my strategy then too? If so, does etiquette
dictate that I should wait until he wipes the confused look off his faced?
>
> The best survival mechanism on the street is to not get into fights at all.
> Training in aikido emphasizes the non-aggression which will prevent fights.
It's pretty universally granted that aikidoka are the monks and saints of the MA
world: You guys get to wear the holier then thou shirts. I'll even grant that
your average aikidoka will probably get into less fights then your average boxer
or such: however, that' not the issue @ hand: the issue @ hand is this: once you
_are_ in a fight, is aikido as effective as an striking art would be(given the
same number of years of experience?). The answer is no.
>
> Training in kicking and punching emphasizes the aggression which will cause
> fights.
There is a name for people who are not aggressive once actually in a fight:
victims.
> <snip>You're obviously not interested in aikido because you wish to escalate
> conflicts into fights and t
ridiculous, pompous, arrogant, and ill conceived bullshit.
M
<snip>If androids dream of electric sheep, what do electric sheep dream of?
electric grass?
jan...@ibm.net
> kicks and punches. Getting in front of a big ol' bag and practicing
More important is not just to know how to kick or punch but when and where.
Aikido is about how to enter into the attack and learn how to spontaneously
find safe position. Without this two basic elements forget kicking/punching.
Safe position means that you can hit attacker and he can't reach you. That's
why you have a choice ( punch, kick, lock, doesn't matter) and he not. Under
this conditions you can realize big dream of all aikidoka to control one's
attack and protect him ( read: without hurt him too much).
Stephane
> Russ
NAv8or
Mehran,
This is one of those mixed cases, where I partly agree and partly disagree with
both you and the guy you are flaming.
I think M Barnard's "pompous, arrogant" tone may have been in response to the
tone of the post he was citing, which was not flattering to aikidoka nor
grapplers. However, whatever his motivation, I have to agree with you as to
the tone displayed, on all counts.
I also agree with you that you are going to beat the crap out of some guy who
is "fidgeting with [your] wrist." Unfortunately, the only guys in position to
be "knock[ed] on [their] ass" at this exact point will be those who have
forgotten very basic irimi, tenkan, and/or atemi. If they mind the basics,
they won't really fidget with your wrist until they have a) avoided your attack
and b) take your balance.
In other words, if I don't have your balance, I should move into better
position, and screw the technique for the moment (let go of the wrist, in this
case). Or, if you will, before I try to execute a wristlock, I should get your
balance by catching you before you set, while possibly hitting you with
fist/palm/elbow or knee/kick or hip into hip or any combination of the above.
As far as mindset, atemi can be gentle, but they can also be deadly serious.
Those aikidoka who think they don't need some striking skills probably will not
have effective atemi, and are too accustomed to dealing with uke vs an actual
attacker. However, most of the guys I practice with come from striking
backgrounds, and/or wrestling. I had a little of both before starting aikido.
And luckily for me, one guy is a 240 lb bouncer, another is a 235 lb cop, and
another is a 230 lb TKD bb. None of them will give me a damn thing, and they
force me to actually take their balance, by freezing my techniques if I don't.
They also force me to blend, because I cannot overpower them at a measly 195
lbs.
I have to agree with M Barnard, though, that aikidoka are, at least in theory,
better trained to deescalate things before they go ballistic. If for no other
reason than that our techniques are practiced from normal standing/walking
positions, we theoretically should be able to present a less threatening
demeanor while we decide how to deal with things. However, this does not mean
that all aikidoka have the sense to not shoot off their mouths, or incite
violence. Every style has its hotshots. But aikido itself is more attuned to
deescalation.
As far as the "monks and saints" comment, I haven't been referred to in such
terms since that whole Tailhook thing, and I was in Texas when that
happened.... Thanks, Mehran, we Naval officers and aviators need more
endorsements like that! Seriously, though, bear in mind that such a statement
only describes a (vocal) portion of aikidoka. At the same time, it brings you
dangerously close to the "ridiculous, pompous, arrogant, and ill conceived
bullshit" to which you take such exception. Honestly, Mehran, I enjoy your
posts, and expect better of you, even though that may not be fair.
Morgan
Mehran Habibi
NAv8or wrote:
> <snip>
> I have to agree with M Barnard, though, that aikidoka are, at least in theory,
> better trained to deescalate things before they go ballistic.
I agree with him there too: <engaging in one of his favorite activities, our hero
madly quotes himself > "I'll even grant that your average aikidoka will probably
get into less fights then your average boxer or such: however, that' not the issue
@ hand: "
> <snip>As far as the "monks and saints" comment, I haven't been referred to in
> such
> terms since that whole Tailhook thing, and I was in Texas when that
> happened.... Thanks, Mehran, we Naval officers and aviators need more
> endorsements like that!
Er, you're welcome, me thinks...
> Seriously, though, bear in mind that such a statement
> only describes a (vocal) portion of aikidoka. At the same time, it brings you
> dangerously close to the "ridiculous, pompous, arrogant, and ill conceived
> bullshit" to which you take such exception.
He was being a high brow prick, and I called him on it. Still, I don't mind
sprouting "ridiculous, pompous, arrogant, and ill conceived bullshit": Hell,
sometimes I feel like I live there: just ask my wife. Still, the points that I've
been trying to make is fairly straighforward ones: 1)basic, fundamental techniques
(like strikes) are easier and safer(for the MA) then the more ornate variety: 2)
Arts in which the practitioners get beat up a bit tend to be more effective once
someone is actually in a fight.
> Honestly, Mehran, I enjoy your
> posts, and expect better of you, even though that may not be fair.
>
> Morgan
Please don't put _that_ on me: I generally enjoy being a prick. But FWIW, the
sentiment is reciprocated.
Mehran
ke...@my-dejanews.com
Mehran Habibi <hab...@cis.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>
> M Barnard wrote:
>
> > <snip arrogant progagenda> As you sail or spin past the aikidoka, remember
> > that
> > this is your strategy. When you land on your back, remember that this is
> > your strategy. When you are immobilized with a painful joint lock, remember
> > that this is your strategy.
> >
>
> What about when I knock 'em on his ass while he's fidgeting with my wrist?
I think that many people have loudly and repeatedly pointed out that
"fidgeting with your wrist" is bad aikido. Weak punches don't do much damage
either, but I don't see anyone condemning boxers because some people are poor
punchers.
I'll even grant that
> your average aikidoka will probably get into less fights then your average
boxer
> or such: however, that' not the issue @ hand: the issue @ hand is this: once
you
> _are_ in a fight, is aikido as effective as an striking art would be(given the
> same number of years of experience?). The answer is no.
It is? I don't think any of the aikidoka on this NG have conceded that, nor
have I ever seen any independent evidence of your claim.
Besides, what's wrong with treating fight avoidance as a valid self-defense
technique? Let's just suppose for the sake of argument that you, the big
tough boxer, lose 1 out of every 10 fights, and get into 10 fights per year.
And let's suppose that the wimpy aikidoka loses fully half of all fights, but
only 1 tense situation out of 10 deteriorates to an actual fight, so the
aikidoka is in only 1 fight per year. After two years, the aikidoka has been
in two fights and lost one of them, while you've been in 20 fights and lost 2
of them. Whose hospital bill is larger?
Katherine
Mehran Habibi
NAv8or wrote:
> Mehran Habibi posted:
>
> >M Barnard wrote:
> >
> >> <snip arrogant progagenda> As you sail or spin past the aikidoka, remember
> >> that
> >> this is your strategy. When you land on your back, remember that this is
> >> your strategy. When you are immobilized with a painful joint lock,
> >remember
> >> that this is your strategy.
> >>
> >
> >What about when I knock 'em on his ass while he's fidgeting with my wrist?
> >Should I remember that it was my strategy then too? If so, does etiquette
> >dictate that I should wait until he wipes the confused look off his faced?
> >
> >>
> >> The best survival mechanism on the street is to not get into fights at all.
> >> Training in aikido emphasizes the non-aggression which will prevent fights.
> >
> >It's pretty universally granted that aikidoka are the monks and saints of the
> >MA
> >world: You guys get to wear the holier then thou shirts. I'll even grant that
> >your average aikidoka will probably get into less fights then your average
> >boxer
> >or such: however, that' not the issue @ hand: the issue @ hand is this: once
> >you
> >_are_ in a fight, is aikido as effective as an striking art would be(given
> >the
> >same number of years of experience?). The answer is no.
> >
> >>
> >> Training in kicking and punching emphasizes the aggression which will cause
> >> fights.
> >
> >There is a name for people who are not aggressive once actually in a fight:
> >victims.
> >
> >> <snip>You're obviously not interested in aikido because you wish to
> >escalate
> >> conflicts into fights and t
> >
> >ridiculous, pompous, arrogant, and ill conceived bullshit.
> >
> >M
>
> Mehran,
>
> This is one of those mixed cases, where I partly agree and partly disagree with
> both you and the guy you are flaming.
>
> I think M Barnard's "pompous, arrogant" tone may have been in response to the
> tone of the post he was citing, which was not flattering to aikidoka nor
> grapplers.
ps - I just read over Russ's post again: He's just joking around, making fun of
himself, and saying that _all_ MA fail to cover everything. M Barnard is the one
that comes back with his little 'aikido is inherently better cause kicking causes
testosterone poisoning' mantra shit. He's just a plain, old fashioned, honest to
goodness, all american elitist prick. I can do that too: hell, as a striker, I can
probably do it better.
Mehran
Aiki1
> What about when I knock 'em on his ass while he's fidgeting with my wrist?
> Should I remember that it was my strategy then too? If so, does etiquette
> dictate that I should wait until he wipes the confused look off his faced?
Naw, remember it when you go to court and then perhaps jail. ;)
Aiki1
<m_ba...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> My perspective is that if you want to take completely destabilize yourself
> by taking one or both of your feet off of the ground and attempting to kick,
> more power to you. As you sail or spin past the aikidoka, remember that
> this is your strategy. When you land on your back, remember that this is
> your strategy. When you are immobilized with a painful joint lock, remember
> that this is your strategy.
>
> The best survival mechanism on the street is to not get into fights at all.
> Training in aikido emphasizes the non-aggression which will prevent fights.
> Training in kicking and punching emphasizes the aggression which will cause
> fights. An aikidoka in a threatening situation will not escalate the
> situation unless aggression is obvious. Kicking and punching training give
> little choice except escalation.
>
> You're obviously not interested in aikido because you wish to escalate
> conflicts into fights and then do harm to others. Fair enough, but I'd bet
> serious money the average aikidoka will walk away unscathed from a lot more
> situations than you will.
Excellent post.
Aiki1
> once you
> _are_ in a fight, is aikido as effective as an striking art would be(given the
> same number of years of experience?). The answer is no.
Nonsense. My personal experience is yes. And I've seen it with many other
people as well. It's all who you know.
Aiki1
<hab...@cis.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> I've
> been trying to make is fairly straighforward ones: 1)basic, fundamental
techniques
> (like strikes) are easier and safer(for the MA) then the more ornate variety:
Question - do you mean punches? I ask because then I would ask, have you
ever punched anyone?
> 2)
> Arts in which the practitioners get beat up a bit tend to be more
effective once
> someone is actually in a fight.
This does have some truth to it, in the sense that if you are somewaht
used to being hit, if you get hit on the street it won't throw you as much
as it might.
Mehran Habibi
Aiki1 wrote:
> In article <36F55035...@cis.ohio-state.edu>, Mehran Habibi
> <hab...@cis.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
> > I've
> > been trying to make is fairly straighforward ones: 1)basic, fundamental
> techniques
> > (like strikes) are easier and safer(for the MA) then the more ornate variety:
>
> Question - do you mean punches? I ask because then I would ask, have you
> ever punched anyone?
Often. I used to box.
M
Mehran Habibi
Aiki1 wrote:
> In article <36F543D9...@cis.ohio-state.edu>, Mehran Habibi
> <hab...@cis.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
> > once you
> > _are_ in a fight, is aikido as effective as an striking art would be(given the
> > same number of years of experience?). The answer is no.
>
> Nonsense. My personal experience is yes. And I've seen it with many other
> people as well. It's all who you know.
Your personal experience (whatever it's depth and breadth-or lack there off- may be)
notwithstanding, the answer is _still_ no.
M
Mehran Habibi
ke...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> <snip>
> > > <snip arrogant progagenda> As you sail or spin past the aikidoka, remember
> > > that
> > > this is your strategy. When you land on your back, remember that this is
> > > your strategy. When you are immobilized with a painful joint lock, remember
> > > that this is your strategy.
> > >
> >
> > What about when I knock 'em on his ass while he's fidgeting with my wrist?
>
> I think that many people have loudly and repeatedly pointed out that
> "fidgeting with your wrist" is bad aikido. Weak punches don't do much damage
> either, but I don't see anyone condemning boxers because some people are poor
> punchers.
>
I would condemn a boxer if he had weak punches: however, that's not the point: the
point is 1) M Barney was being a prick, 2) minute and fine muscular control pretty
much goes out the window in a fight(unless you already have _tons_ of fighting
experience ), and 3) M Barney was being a prick.
>
> I'll even grant that
> > your average aikidoka will probably get into less fights then your average
> boxer
> > or such: however, that' not the issue @ hand: the issue @ hand is this: once
> you
> > _are_ in a fight, is aikido as effective as an striking art would be(given the
> > same number of years of experience?). The answer is no.
>
> It is? I don't think any of the aikidoka on this NG have conceded that, nor
> have I ever seen any independent evidence of your claim.
Many (realistic) aikidoka concede this: Fighting is not @ the heart of aikido: it is
@ the heart of boxing. et el. As such, those arts are better suited to fighting.
Now, for good citizenship, PTA meetings, inner peace, etc., you guys get the bunte
cake. For fighting, the safest and most effective way(for the MA) to stop someone is
to hit 'em.
> Besides, what's wrong with treating fight avoidance as a valid self-defense
> technique?
That's not the issue under contention. The issue under contention is what one would
do when actually _in_ a fight. I'll grant (and did grant: a fact you seem to have
conveniently forgotten) that aikidoki are generally less likely to get into fights:
however, once in, striking is more effective( generally speaking, of course).
> Let's just suppose for the sake of argument that you, the big
> tough boxer,
Heh. 5'8, 160 lb. soaking wet.
> lose 1 out of every 10 fights, and get into 10 fights per year.
> And let's suppose that the wimpy aikidoka loses fully half of all fights, but
> only 1 tense situation out of 10 deteriorates to an actual fight, so the
> aikidoka is in only 1 fight per year. After two years, the aikidoka has been
> in two fights and lost one of them, while you've been in 20 fights and lost 2
> of them. Whose hospital bill is larger?
You're confusing the issue Katherine: It was never "who's the better citizen, the
most peaceful, the practical zoom demon, etc." it was "who would do better once the
hitting started". You point, while granted, is moot.
M
M Barnard
>Mehran Habibi posted:
>
>>M Barnard wrote:
>>
>>> <snip arrogant progagenda>
>the tone displayed, on all counts.
>
after I hit the post button. I realized the irony of inflammatory comments
given the rest of my comments.
My basic points stand. And I thank Mehran for proving my point about
aggression. In a tense situation, he would very likely end up in a fight,
from the sounds of it.
M ([snip of inflammatory question about 'progagenda'])
Eric Neale
>The question of which art
> develops defensive capability most quickly has no real validity in and of
> itself. The answer has far more to do with the individual than with the art
> being studied. Having said this however, I will concede that some individuals
> do seem to have a greater affinity for some arts than for others. But as this
> can go both ways it does not change the basic fact that no art can really be
> said to give defensive ability faster than another.
>
> Bob Sisselman
Good post!
coldblood
Mehran Habibi wrote in message <36F56381...@cis.ohio-state.edu>...
>
>
>Aiki1 wrote:
>
>> In article <36F543D9...@cis.ohio-state.edu>, Mehran Habibi
>> <hab...@cis.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > _are_ in a fight, is aikido as effective as an striking art would
be(given the
>> > same number of years of experience?). The answer is no.
>>
>> people as well. It's all who you know.
>
>Your personal experience (whatever it's depth and breadth-or lack there
off- may be)
>notwithstanding, the answer is _still_ no.
>
>M
>
a realistic fashion( which i grant, most seem not to) he will be able to
use what he has learned as well as the boxer uses what he has learned. it's
the lack of realism in training that holds most arts and artists back, not
always the techniques themselves. i do hold that some arts are inherently
less effective than others particulalry at certain points in a givin
students training. in 6 months you can learn to be a very effective boxer.
in that same 6 months you will not even begin to be effective in aikido. but
after say 5 years, assuming the same relative realism in training, i'd stack
an aikidoka against a boxer, and expect him to not get creamed, he will in
fact likely throw the boxer, then apply a lock/break. time and realism in
training are the issues here, not that aikido is innefective or that throws
are more or less effective. anyway thats my ramble for the day.
Andrew
Eric Neale
I believe Aiki1 has trained with some
> pretty senior BJJ folks and can probably discuss this in more detail than I
> can.
> Katherine
I would like to hear more about that.
-Eric
Mehran Habibi
M Barnard wrote:
> <snip>My basic points stand. And I thank Mehran for proving my point about
> aggression. In a tense situation, he would very likely end up in a fight,
> from the sounds of it.
>
Maybe about 5 years ago. These days, while I'm not a saint, I'm a pretty calm
person: you pretty much have to work @ it to get me there.
M
Mehran Habibi
coldblood wrote:
> <snip>
> hmmm. much as i hate to do it, i have to disagree.
Andrew, you're getting soft on me.. ;-)
> if the aikidoka trains in
> a realistic fashion( which i grant, most seem not to) he will be able to
> use what he has learned as well as the boxer uses what he has learned. it's
> the lack of realism in training that holds most arts and artists back, not
> always the techniques themselves. i do hold that some arts are inherently
> less effective than others particulalry at certain points in a givin
> students training. in 6 months you can learn to be a very effective boxer.
> in that same 6 months you will not even begin to be effective in aikido. but
> after say 5 years,
You're on crack! do you have any more?
But, yes, I would agree with you that an _any_ ma, trained against realistic
paradigms, would probably be plenty. Mostly, I don't really give two shits about
this topic: I just didn't like M barnard's condescending tone.
M
M Barnard
Sounds like a good thing from what you've said about your skills and
experience. You could do a lot of serious damage to people.
That's one of the reasons I like aikido. Being large, strong and fairly
fast gives me much of the (dis)advantage that your skills training gives
you: it's easy for me to hurt people. My focus is on improving my body
sense and balance, and on learning techniques which will prevent damage to
others. Among other things, there's less likelihood of my falling on
someone, or stepping on their foot.
Did anybody besides me see the recent study which showed that cathartic
acting out of stress and aggression actually increased stress and aggression
over time? Seems like a fitting topic to introduce here.
M
David Telesca
> _are_ in a fight, is aikido as effective as an striking art would be(given the
> same number of years of experience?). The answer is no.
I'll reluctantly throw my 2 cents in:
I've trained in Tang Soo Do for the past 19 years and aikido for 9, and
I have to say that, for me, aikido became much more effective in a
shorter time. If I had to use techniques from only one art, I'd use my
aikido techniques.
I don't agree that someone will be able to strike me easily while I am
'fiddling with his wrist'. The point is that as soon as he/she commits
to the strike, I would blend with the strike and take the opponent's
balance while I apply the technique.
At the same time, I also have to say that my Tang Soo Do training aided
me in aikido training (with regards to discipline, knowledge of
effective strikes and kicks... etc.)
David T.
David Telesca
> > > once you
> > > _are_ in a fight, is aikido as effective as an striking art would be(given the
> > > same number of years of experience?). The answer is no.
> >
> > people as well. It's all who you know.
>
> Your personal experience (whatever it's depth and breadth-or lack there off- may be)
> notwithstanding, the answer is _still_ no.
No offense is meant, but why is this person's personal opinion or
experience invalid, while yours is factual. A better response might
have been: "your personal experience may be yes, but my opinion is
still no".
My experience, after training in both striking arts and aikido, also
favors aikido, strictly on the basis of self-defense. A question: are
you basing your opinion on your personal experience in aikido training?
I don't ask to start a conflict, but merely trying to get an idea of
where you are coming from.
David T.
Mehran Habibi
David Telesca wrote:
> <snip>
> I don't agree that someone will be able to strike me easily while I am
> 'fiddling with his wrist'. The point is that as soon as he/she commits
> to the strike, I would blend with the strike and take the opponent's
> balance while I apply the technique.
This is presupposing a great deal: that you'll re-act to his gross muscular motion
with deft and detailed fin muscular motion, that you'll do so before his fist hits
you(which can't be more then an arms length away), that your balance will be
superior to his( otherswise, how would you move faster?), that you'll keep you cool
as someone is flailing to hit you, that you'll be able to recover should the
technique fail, etc. Still, it _is_ possible I suppose. However, IMO, smacking 'em
instead of grabbing his wrist and trying to wiggle in an ornate manner it is the
better bet.
M
Mehran Habibi
David Telesca wrote:
> <snip>No offense is meant, but why is this person's personal opinion or
> experience invalid, while yours is factual. A better response might
> have been: "your personal experience may be yes, but my opinion is
> still no".
>
Maybe, but I'm not matching my fight experience to his: I'm matching the simplicity,
speed, and recoverability of a punch against the simplicity, speed, and recoverability of
a wrist lock Regardless of how fast a runner you are, it's faster to go the short way
rather then the long. The fact that you once(or maybe even several times) managed to do
finish the long way before your opponent could finish the short way does not speak to the
effectiveness of going the long way around: it simply speaks to your speed.
>
> My experience, after training in both striking arts and aikido, also
> favors aikido, strictly on the basis of self-defense. A question: are
> you basing your opinion on your personal experience in aikido training?
No, I am basing my experience, among other things, on fighting, logic, sparing with
aikidoki, etc.
> I don't ask to start a conflict, but merely trying to get an idea of
> where you are coming from.
Judo, TKD, boxing, and JKD. And no offense taken.
M
Mehran Habibi
M Barnard wrote:
> <snip>Sounds like a good thing from what you've said about your skills and
> experience. You could do a lot of serious damage to people.
>
I'd like to think so, but then, so would everyone.
> <snip>Did anybody besides me see the recent study which showed that cathartic
> acting out of stress and aggression actually increased stress and aggression
> over time? Seems like a fitting topic to introduce here.
>
No, do you have a site?
> M
Ok, _this_ we're gonna hafta talk about: I've been signing off with 'M' for a
while now: unless you want ppl to think you're me( heaven forbid ), you should
gimme back my 'M'. ;-)
M
Mehran Habibi
Aiki1 wrote:
> In article <36F543D9...@cis.ohio-state.edu>, Mehran Habibi
> <hab...@cis.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
> > What about when I knock 'em on his ass while he's fidgeting with my wrist?
> > Should I remember that it was my strategy then too? If so, does etiquette
> > dictate that I should wait until he wipes the confused look off his faced?
>
> Naw, remember it when you go to court and then perhaps jail. ;)
"your honor, he just grabbed my wrist started to tickle my pinkie: I told 'em to
stop, but he wouldn't. Finally, I had to hit 'em in self defense: I was laughing
so hard I though I'd rupture an intestine, and that's dangerous, as you know."
M
M Barnard
>> <snip>Did anybody besides me see the recent study which showed that
cathartic
>> acting out of stress and aggression actually increased stress and
aggression
>> over time? Seems like a fitting topic to introduce here.
>>
>No, do you have a site?
>
Read it in a newspaper actually, but here's part of a NYT article.
Venting Your Anger May Be a Bad Idea
It can increases violent behavior, researchers find
by Erica Goode, New York TimesWednesday, March 10, 1999
[snip]
In the studies, which appear in the March issue of
the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
angry subjects who hit a punching bag were later
more aggressive in blasting their rivals in a
competitive task with loud, unpleasant noises than
subjects who did not hit a punching bag.
But aggression also increased when the subjects,
who were all undergraduates enrolled in
introductory psychology courses, first read a bogus
article describing research purportedly showing that
hitting an inanimate object was ``an effective way of
venting anger.''
[snip]
Over the past three decades, however,
psychologists have tested the catharsis theory and
found no evidence for it. ``Catharsis has enjoyed a
run of support in the popular media that far outstrips
its support in the research literature,'' Bushman and
his colleagues wrote.
[snip]
Full text is posted at on dejanews at the URL below:
http://x13.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=qs]/getdoc.xp?AN=453557491.1&CONTEXT=92205945
8.1735786526&hitnum=1
If your newsreader is like mine, you'll have to cut and paste into your
locater window.
What this seems to indicate is that an art like aikido, which has much less
in the way of cathartic activities (my experience), would be much more
likely to produce a person who wouldn't see violence as the solution, in
addition to it's focus on more peaceful conflict resolution.
Or perhaps every martial art, including aikido, just increases the
likelihood that a practitioner will aggress themselves into a fight.
>> M
>
>Ok, _this_ we're gonna hafta talk about: I've been signing off with 'M' for
a
>while now: unless you want ppl to think you're me( heaven forbid ), you
should
>gimme back my 'M'. ;-)
Hey! Now here I might be able to claim seniority. While I'm new to RMA,
I've been using this on misc.writing and other non-MA groups for about five
years.
Of course, I don't think anyone is really likely to confuse us, do you?
<grin>
M
Aiki1
<hab...@cis.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> > I'll even grant that
> > > your average aikidoka will probably get into less fights then your average
> > boxer
> > > or such: however, that' not the issue @ hand: the issue @ hand is
this: once
> > you
> > > _are_ in a fight, is aikido as effective as an striking art would
be(given the
> > > same number of years of experience?). The answer is no.
> >
> > It is? I don't think any of the aikidoka on this NG have conceded that, nor
> > have I ever seen any independent evidence of your claim.
>
> Many (realistic) aikidoka concede this: Fighting is not @ the heart of
aikido:
I'm beginning to think that you have very little experience on the street
or in the arts - you don't know the difference between "fighting" and
street self-defense? Huge difference. Aikido is one of the most effective
street arts out there. In fact, that realm is really it's forte, in terms
of technique.
Aiki1
<hab...@cis.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> Your personal experience (whatever it's depth and breadth-or lack there
off- may be)
> notwithstanding, the answer is _still_ no.
Well, I'm glad you can decide what the universal truth is for everyone, no
matter what anyone else says, no matter what anyone else's experience is.
It must be fun to play God - are you sure your name isn't Eis? Surely
you're kidding, because if you're not, you don't have a clue about what
you are discussing here.
Aiki1
<davidt...@home.com> wrote:
> No offense is meant, but why is this person's personal opinion or
> experience invalid, while yours is factual. A better response might
> have been: "your personal experience may be yes, but my opinion is
> still no".
I agree.
> My experience, after training in both striking arts and aikido, also
> favors aikido, strictly on the basis of self-defense.
Me too, and I've trained in Karate, Judo, Hapkido, Aikido, BJJ,
Tanto-jutsu, some Aiki-jujutsu, and some nasty shit that I ain't even
goin' to talk about. I find Aikido to be the best, unless I want to kill
someone right out. I will admit I know better ways to do this than what
I've learned in Aikido, for the most part.
Aiki1
I train regularly in BJJ with Luis Heredia, Rickson Gracie's black belt
assistant. Unles one of us is out with something, injury or sickness etc.
It's great, he's great.
Aiki1
<hab...@cis.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> > Question - do you mean punches? I ask because then I would ask, have you
> > ever punched anyone?
>
> Often. I used to box.
Have you ever punched anyone full out without any padding or tape on your hands?
Aiki1
<dool...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> in 6 months you can learn to be a very effective boxer.
> in that same 6 months you will not even begin to be effective in aikido. but
> after say 5 years, assuming the same relative realism in training, i'd stack
> an aikidoka against a boxer,
While it may be true that in 6 months someone can learn to box ok, I can
teach just about anyone to deal with a boxer in about ten minutes. Ask any
Kali instructor how to break a boxer's hands when he strikes. Just a side
thought - strikers, throwers, it's the person and the instructor, and the
moment in time that defines it all.
Eric Neale
> I train regularly in BJJ with Luis Heredia, Rickson Gracie's black belt
> assistant. Unles one of us is out with something, injury or sickness etc.
> It's great, he's great.
I have had some problems with taking what Aikido gave me and appling it
to new areas. Can the principles of blending, one point, and ki flow be
used with grappling? I have used the unbendable arm principle on the
ground and at times an opponent can grab my wrist but they cannot
control my fingers. Are there other principles that apply as well?
Perhaps I am allowing myself to be distracted. It is hard to
concentrate on relaxation when I'm getting squashed. What have you
experienced with aiki and grapling? Thank you very much.
-Eric