Combining Aikido and BJJ
Bizark
two MA's. It's just a thought at the moment, but I am wondering if it
would be good to train in something which would complement my Yoshinkan
Aikido.
Would these arts work well together? Could the footwork in BJJ mesh
with what I have learnt in Aikido? Can anyone see any
major clash of technique?
I have only been doing Aikido for about 8 months so it may be a bit
early to start training in another art....but I think I'll give it a try
and see what happens. :)
Any thoughts appreciated
-Bizark-
cb
have really enjoyed doing bjj.
"Bizark" <sg...@student.monash.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3A592F77...@student.monash.edu.au...
kino...@my-deja.com
related practitioners who also practise BJJ. The most notable is Mits
Yamashita in california. He apparently spent a significant amount of
time training with the Gracies.
There is a gentleman on this list (Sai) who is in GB, who apparently
also integrates ground grappling into his Yoshinkan based aikido (not
sure if his whole association does the same).
At least one of the canadian Yoshinkan dojos has some practise in
it...one of their students trained with me for a while, and he taught
some of the basics.
Steven Miranda Sensei in california also has some grappling on the
side, I believe.
It is done, sometimes by well known people. Others will not tolerate
that type of training in their dojo, for good reasons from their
perspective. My own opinion is that it will be beneficial as far as
self defense, and probably a lot of fun. Might not be be great for
your aikido, or might be really great, depending on your training and
perspective. I've done a *very* little grappling(in the bjj context),
and feel that it helps to be familiar with the considerations it brings
up. The skills can be very useful. I would not expect "footwork" to
be a problem; The basic yoshinkan stance might be way too open for bjj
while standing...but the ground work (99% of bjj?) is where you'll find
the advantages. Combining suwari waza with proper newaza can be very
effective (and a hoot to boot). Pardon the rhyme.
Yamashita S. has a great article on the combination (I believe it was
in a past issue of aikido journal; if you do a search on e-budo.com you
should find a link to the article).
Ron Tisdale
In article <3A592F77...@student.monash.edu.au>,
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Sai
Hi
The one thing I would say is that Aikido technique is without strength - you
remove your strength from executing the technique - whereas BJJ is a
strength game, as is Judo. Yes, they are reliant on technique too, but they
have a strength content that is not found in Aikido.
Sai
Chris
I think there is more than one high-ranking Aikido teacher who
practices or practiced BJJ. As a matter of fact, my old teacher liked
it enough to teach it in a separate class. It has been referred to by
some as "Aikido on the ground", its muscular and/or threatening
students notwithstanding ;)
Joe
anything.
Bizark
it out any seeing if I'm happy with it. By the way Sai, I've been trying
to figure out if the new dojo I'm starting to train at is in any way linked
to yours. I've read some of the stuff you've written on this newsgroup and
liked the sound of it. Shudokan right? I checked the web site and it lists
Australia under the international dojos section, but doesn't have a link or
give any more details. Well anyway, I happened to go along with an old
school friend to check out his dojo and I liked it straight away. It also
goes by the name Shudokan I think.
Yoshinkan style with its head dojo in Thornbury, Melbourne, Australia. Ring
any bells?
thanks again
-Bizark-
knoops
IMHO 8 months is really to short to start combining. There is definitly the
risk you might become a jack of all trades but master of none.
On the otherhand, who am I to tell you what to do and how to have fun.
Enjoy training,
Erik
--
E.J. Knoops M.Sc. M.T.D.
department of Public Health
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences
Erasmus University Rotterdam
P.O.Box 1738
3000 DR Rotterdam
The Netherlands
Bizark
says that the sooner BJJ is started for his students the better, as it helps
their Aikido.
For anyone else who is interested, the article is at...
http://www.aiki.com/sneak/yamashita.html
Cheers
-Bizark-
DC
>
> http://www.aiki.com/sneak/yamashita.html
Cheers for that. Very interesting indeed.
--
_______________________________________________
DC
"You can not reason a man out of a position he did not reach through
reason"
"Don't use a big word where a diminutive one will suffice."
Have you visited the hunger site today?
http://www.hungersite.com/index.html
Your visit donates grain to the United Nations world food program.
Julian Frost
long-time student of Aikido, let me say a few words...
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Sai wrote:
> The one thing I would say is that Aikido technique is without strength - you
> remove your strength from executing the technique - whereas BJJ is a
> strength game, as is Judo. Yes, they are reliant on technique too, but they
> have a strength content that is not found in Aikido.
I disagree. In good Judo, Aikido and BJJ, strength is never denied, nor is
it relied upon. The techniques in all three arts work under appropriate
circumstances, and don't work when those circumstances make those
techniques inappropriate. Often, adding a little, or in some cases a lot
of strength, can make the technique work... but is this "good" Aikido,
Judo or BJJ? :-)
Julian
nos...@nospam.com
> [snip]
> I disagree. In good Judo, Aikido and BJJ, strength is never denied, nor is
> it relied upon. The techniques in all three arts work under appropriate
> circumstances, and don't work when those circumstances make those
> techniques inappropriate. Often, adding a little, or in some cases a lot
> of strength, can make the technique work... but is this "good" Aikido,
> Judo or BJJ? :-)
In Judo, it's an accepted fact that strength is necessary in
tournaments. If we can see tournaments as some kind of real life
physical confrontation, then we should have no problem in seeing that in
real life physical confrontations, strength is a part of it. However,
the better skilled you are compared with your opponent, the less your
physical strength should be a factor in your fight. IMO, this applies to
all styles of martial arts.
Dave
Julian Frost
> In Judo, it's an accepted fact that strength is necessary in
> tournaments. If we can see tournaments as some kind of real life
> physical confrontation, then we should have no problem in seeing that in
> real life physical confrontations, strength is a part of it. However,
> the better skilled you are compared with your opponent, the less your
> physical strength should be a factor in your fight. IMO, this applies to
> all styles of martial arts.
At the last Aikido-L Seminar, lots of us got to see a video tape of Mifune
Kyuzo, the 10th dan Judo master, performing Judo techniques against
opponents who were easily 6-10" taller and 80-100 lbs heavier than him.
With his superior technique, he was able to *effortlessly* counter and
throw their strongest techniques. Mifune's Keikogi was always ruffled,
having been pulled apart by his opponents as they tried to throw him, yet
Mifune's opponents' Gi were never untucked. This showed that Mifune was
able to take his opponents' balance quite naturally and *very*
efficiently, without having to resort to using large amounts of strength.
So... with that in mind... *good* Judo (ok, *exceptional* Judo) requires
no great strength, but for those whose Judo isn't at that level (the vast
majority of us), you're probably going to need it. The same is true for
BJJ and Aikido.
Julian
Joe Petrovich
Very Good answer. I'm glad you mentioned Mits Yamamshita, I'll go check out
the article later.
I've met Mits for the first time last summer during a weekend clinic we all
attended in Canada and I came to like him very much. BTW he received a
Lifetime Achievement Award for his contribution to Aikido in North America.
In his acceptance speach he said in a self depreciating manner, that if you
are around long enough and get old enough somebody will give you something
just as a reward for surviving that long! We even had several Yoshinkai
Aikdoka come from Brazil for this important event. I'm sorry I had no time
to spend with them other than to say hello.
In between seminar sessions one of Mits' students (I think it was one of
his) showed some nice BJJ groundwork counters. Interestingly, it was mainly
just a few of us 'old school' boys who teach that were attracted to this.
Everyone watching was very interested in it.
Whether it is BJJ or anything else, adding to ones repretiore has never
been discouraged but rather encouraged as long as I've been doing Aikido.
I'm sure you would agree with this. 'Stealing technique' has always been a
part of Aikido and for that matter every other martial art going. The old
saying, 'If it works use it.' is a motto everyone should take to heart.
Just make sure you know how to use it.
I too sometimes discourage beginners from doing more than one art at a
time, especially if they are new in both. The body mechanics have to be
sufficiently developed so as to not confuse the new student. Use of
inappropriate stances and moves make learning counterproductive in either
art. Seasoned students from any other art can much more easily adapt and
understand the differences.
My view is that for a beginner to take two arts simultaneously they have to
be complimentary in nature so problems are minimized. In some respects Tai
Chi, Kendo, Silat, Iaido, Judo, BJJ and Aikido work together better than
say Aikido and TKD or Karatedo, in my experiance anyway. As an instructor
you always have to be alert for these problems and correct them
continuously. The problems are not overwhelming, just time consuming;
something you would rather not have to deal with if you had a choice. So
the general rule of thumb is learn one very well and then expand your
horizons.
Again, the only caution would be, like Sai mentioned, to not confuse the
two; be aware of those differences and use each within it's proper context.
A blending can be created under proper supervision by someone experianced
enough such as Mits. The attraction of BJJ to me was that I could see the
elegance and smoothness inherent in the movements if done with the oponents
momentum. To get to that point under stressful competative conditions would
obviously take years of continuous practice if you are just starting out.
The core fundamentals and techniques of each martial art does not change
significantly since these are the foundations from which everything else is
built upon. Everything else is a test of the efficacy of that foundation.
Techniques being studied for a specific purpose either are invented or re-
introduced following a cyclical pattern dependent on the instructors
interest and any new reality being faced. Some forget that there are
literally over 3,000 different techniques avaiable in Aikido with only a
small proportion ever being taught at any one time. Inovation has never
been discouraged. When the core basics are mastered, almost any type of
technique can be layered onto them as being complimentary with few
modifications. Some ideas and techniques fall into disuse only to be 're-
discovered' as circumstances and interests change.
In aikido grappling ground techniques have always been there, unfortunetly
to make them smooth and effortless requires much more concentrated effort
and time than some instructors and students would like invest. So they are
usually taught to experianced students much later on in special classes, if
at all. Overall grapping is effective and not to be overlooked. That is the
challenge that keeps things fresh and new, since there is always some
technique you see and can say, a ha! I understand this.
To close off remember the old Aikido dictum: "Rules? We don' need no
steenkin' rules." Outside the basics there are no rules when it comes to
what you use for self defence. Of course the philosophical aspects of
Aikido compliments and tempers this with the collary dictum: "If you can
defeat an enemy without violence or giving him an opening to attack, you
win AND no lawsuits!"
To our friend Bizark, enjoy your training, I know you are in very good
hands. Who knows, you may end up doing the instructors course at the hombu
in Japan some day.
Cheers 'n G'day
Joe
kino...@my-deja.com
jpetr...@home.com (Joe Petrovich) wrote:
Snip excellent reply...
"In aikido grappling ground techniques have always been there, "
Hi Joe, Good to talk again...I had a question about the statement
above. I've seen certain "old time" yoshinkan guys do more reclining
pins, and we're all aware of suwari waza, but are you refering to these
or more newaza like techniques? Inquiring minds want to know....
Ron (have a good weekend) Tisdale
Joe Petrovich
Hey Ron,
More newaza techniques. Sawari waza techniques are a class in themselves mainly
to promote proper use of the lower body, hips and alignment of the upper body
which translate into better standing technique. This is not to say that they
have no use in grapping on the ground once there. Most newaza start as take-
down and pin utilizing armbars,leg locks, chokes, and such. Usually this is
accomplished via a leg sweep or sacrific throw with pin.
Ground work if entangled is very similar to what most judo people are familiar
with and deals with wrapping and immobilizing opponents as well as escapes and
counters. As with the most accomplished judo players and grapplers, this is
done by technique more than brut force and strength. Focus of energy at one
point creates openings for attack, escape or counter attack to pin. Still
finding practitiomers and such expertise in Aikido are few and far between.
That is why I'm partial to grappling, BJJ or Judo techniques to help fill these
voids when available, open to modification of course ;-)
In Japan, Terada sensei is well known for this and has taught the Metro Tokyo
police in it's use. It is very fast, effective and well suited to law-
enforcement and one on one hand to hand military combat. A fast take down and
pin can effectively end a threat very quickly. In almost all styles of Aikido
the emphisis has been to try and NOT go to ground because of the
unpredictablity of the suroundings and number of opponents you find yourself
in. It is one thing to do it in a dojo and another in a glass strewn allyway,
tavern or on a city street. Still, it is very important to know how to deal
with those situations if they ever do arise.
The best way to train is just do it in class or afterclass so you can get use
to feeling smothered and have to react using aikido principles while being beat
upon. Not exactly what you're use to but very important training in my opinion.
Finding someone who is versed in ground fighting would be an excellent way to
practice. At the very least you become inovative and learn what is not
effective vs. what is effective in these encounters. Attempting to do so during
a real confontation is obviously not a good idea.
Cheers Ron and have a good weekend,
Joe
Bizark
> hands. Who knows, you may end up doing the instructors course at the hombu
> in Japan some day.
>
> Cheers 'n G'day
>
> Joe
Hehe....thanks Joe :) Happy training...
-Bizark-
kino...@my-deja.com
Interesting, in that it was Amos Parker S., who I believe is one of
Terada S.'s long time students, who was doing the reclining pins. Is
there any documentation on the "Ground work if entangled" techniques,
and if so, where would I find it? I have already taken some
opportunity to at least familiarize myself with some groundwork basics,
but would be very interested in finding Yoshinkan aikido resources. I
am always astounded by the breadth and depth of technique out there...
Thanks for the excellent info
Ron Tisdale
Joe Petrovich
Unfortunetly no. I'm glad you mentioned Amos Parker sensei, he is
exceptionally skilled and probably the only one in N. America right now who
teaches those skills. I too wish there were some avaiable resources I could
point you to but as far as I know they don't exist.
Cheers,
Joe
Joe Petrovich
Opps your question got me on a roll here and I forgot to post this earlier,
I forgot to mention Mits Yamashita in California who is a proponent of adding
BJJ techniques to Aikido. It isn't Aikido, but I do believe it works very well
with it. His Aikido is different because it developed isolated from mainstream
Yoshinkan teaching and refinement for extended periods of time. With no one to
help you to correct your technique or refine it from within your art when you
hit roadblocks you are forced to look elsewhere to fill in the gaps in your
training which he did by studying other styles of MA including BJJ. He would be
the first to admit that his technique at that time was not the greatest and he
had to compensate for it. He would also admit that there are those who possess
superior pure Aikido skills to his own. Therefore his approach is unique and
has much to add to the evolutionary nature of Aikido itself.
People forget that by its very nature Aikido it was designed to be dynamic and
embrace the new if it enhances the art or the philosophy it embodies. To stay
still is to stagnate and eventually die unless invigorated by purpose that is
relevant to those that take it. Traditional Chinese medicine almost faded away
if not for recognition of its solid core and tradition that gave rise to
renewed respect for its healing abilities. Ironically, it was the West that did
this and not from within China itself. The Chinese government actually banned
the teaching of traditional medicine during the Cultural Revolution. This
includes Qi Jung teachings and principles that were almost lost to the outside
world.
Mits was mentioned in another thread in this forum also promoting the combining
of BJJ with Aikido. Unfortunately some people just pummeled him and aikido for
no good reason except their own ego gratification. Those who condemned him for
being so candid about his own shortcomings as an instructor when he first
started to teach and make claims that it is proof that Aikido is ineffective
and weak don't know jack about anything but what's under their noses.
Anybody who doesn't admit that at one time or another they had their asses
handed back to them while fighting using 'their' style, have never been put to
the test and their sanctimonious opinions are worthless. Every professional
fighter has lost at some point, but it doesn't mean that they dump on their
chosen art. You just train harder, adapt and learn from your mistakes, that's
all. Even the great Gracie family fighters have lost, so what, does that now
mean what they teach is bad? Hardly. Somebody adapted to them. Others will too
eventually, so they will change too at some point. By the same token Mits
Yamashita should be commended for his openness and honesty. He has been
adapting without rancor or abandoning things he does believe in. More than I
can say for others.
Yamashita sensei was taught by Kimeda sensei, who is now in Toronto, when
Kimeda arrived in North America fresh out of university with a 3rd Degree black
belt. He too trained hard in karate do for a period of time and such cross
training was not unique or unheard of but quite common back then. So purist
proponents that frown upon such ideas or call into question the efficacy of
another art because of this don't have much of a leg to stand on.
There is no such thing as a complete art or a MA that does not or has not
already incorporate elements found in others. I can see the principles of
'aikido' in most other arts since the principles and body mechanics used are
exactly the same though veiled in movements that are unique culturally and
spiritually to a particular 'art'. Aikido itself is an amalgamation of
different styles, packaged by the genius of O'sensei to help him train his body
and mind so that he did NOT have to fight and approach spiritual enlightenment.
That was his purpose. In order to NOT fight your technique must become so
superior and absolutely effective that it child's play. To get there involves
rigorous physical and spiritual training over the long haul measured in decades
not months or years.
Effective hand-to-hand combat technique differs little across cultures and
generally are limited to a few core basic principles. To be effective the
training has to be easy to grasp, repetitive and realistic to most peoples
natural abilities. Some arts can quicky and efficeintly transfer these skills
to a beginner so that they can become usefull almost immediately in minor
confrontations or against untrained or cowardly assailants expecting an easy
victim.
When it comes to effective fighting skills some things really are natural and
can be discovered on your own. For example, value of the tackle and mount so
often mentioned as the core in grappling and BJJ I inadvertantly learned in
grade 3 while fighting off a much larger and boxing trained bully. Since I also
didn't know how to punch I used slaps, a hammer fist, gouges, my forearms and
elbows to beat him to a pulp. Never bothered me again. It was a revelation and
I felt elated by it. That skill has been a part of me ever since. My only
exposure to fighting at that time was watching local professional wrestling on
TV. The terms judo, karate and gung fu were exotic and little known to me. So
what's the fuss that some people trumpet grappling as the best thing to come
along since sliced bread? A number of good contributors have pointed out that
the BJJ basics can be easily learned in a very short period of time. So why not
learn it if you get the chance?
In a competitive environment or against more skilled opponents other skills
such as locks, escapes and counters are added. You may never have to use more
than just a fraction of these in any real confrontation. Knowing a variety only
enhances your skills and betters the odds in your favor. In a real fight your
response will be dictated by the situation and not by the fancy techniques you
may like to use in class or sparring. Learning to escape and not be forced to
ground yourself is just another skill or art to be added to your arsenal of
technique. If they can't take you down and you know how to handle them either
way, who would have the advantage? Duh. Same goes for adding striking skills
and some kicking and kneeing (below the waste is preferable) skills.
In terms of the Yoshinkan school I think a little history will help put things
into perspective as to where we are today. These are my own observations and
opinions and not to be taken as gospel truth. I may be off the mark in some
areas, memory being what it is of past events. It was only with the arrival of
Kushida sensei in 1973, Kimeda sensei's teacher, that finally gave structure to
the teaching curriculum. I started full time with Kushida sensei in March of
'75 and a number of years later with Kimeda when I relocated closer to him than
Kushida. Kushida sensei was, and probably still is the premiere Aikido teacher
in North America despite his rather messy split with Yoshinkan partially over
the hombu dictating direction and technical control. But that's a can of worms
I wish to avoid.
Basically, Shioda Soke, was none too happy with the direction he saw basic
technique being changed or incorrectly applied, read ineffective or watered
down, from the core principles he wished taught. So in a sense the hombu re-
asserted control as the arbitrator of what is the correct BASIC core of
Yoshinkan technique and principles rather than leaving it up to the various
chief instructors around the world to interpret as they saw fit. This does not
preclude differences in personal teaching style, such as, Chida vs. Takeno nor
emphasis such as Terada sensei and Amos Parker sensei with their affinity for
take downs and ground control techniques. As long as they remain true to the
core basics everything else just adds flavor.
So when I read about the Gracie's being unbending about the quality of it's
instructors and BJJ's core technique, direction and teaching method, I
understand completely. Arguments and disputes of this is better than that is
for rank students who have to justify themselves and rally round the flag. If
somebody sucks, either shut up or just say so and move on. The masters rarely
if ever get into this sort of stuff because they walk the walk and talk the
talk so to speak. They also recognize others in other arts that have achieved
their level of proficiency; hence it is a mute argument. The proof is in the
pudding. Pride and belief in what you do is good. Most will tell you that you
train for yourself not somebody else, with the adage that a technique must work
or it is useless and that is up to you.
Then again there are a few that follow their own path, taking from here, adding
there and coming up with something unique and different. They too will have
their critics demanding to know what lineage they come from and be dismissive
and condescending when the answers are not to the critic's liking. Of course
when these trailblazers prove themselves and become respected and popular with
a following of students eager to learn they too will hand out rankings for
their style even though they hold not rank of their own other than that of
founder. Gi, are you listening you wise turtle you? When you open your own
school, make tapes available for the rest of us. ;)
Cheers and so long for a while, Adios amigo,
Joe
kino...@my-deja.com
timers got on here. I just don't have the depth of experience or
training yet to convey some of the things you do. Great history lesson
thrown in there as well. I think this makes a better response to
Dash's post than anything I have time to write...