aikido vs sub-wrestling

[KoalaJJ]

My misguided parents put me through Aikido until the age of 12. It was fucking useless. Rugby would have been better for self defense.

The only part I actually liked was a drill at the end where you had to pin the other person down for 10 seconds. Imagine how happy I was when I found Judo.

 

[Patrick F Carey]

This isn't even remotely close to true. You can defend yourself with sufficient force anytime you reasonably apprehend imminent danger of grave bodily harm, subject to duties to retreat, and various state-law pecularities.

The danger needn't be real, merely believed by a reasonable actor.

exactly what a 'clear' danger means. did you read my post?

 

[Balto]

maybe, maybe not. Big enough dude or some guy in tapout shirt who you reasonably believed was a tough MMA fighter.



maybe...maybe not. See the problem here is what if you lose? You should wait until your skull breaks to have cause?

My point is that the maybe not happens a lot of the time. There are lots of scenarios in which I need to have some options other than lethal force.

use it as a club then.

You're just playing around now.

i'm rollin on dubs son



i'm not all that vague...but there are things you can and can't say, even if true, once you get past blue belt. Suppose i was in the alliance camp and i was sticking up for that schultz dude or i was in some other camp talking about how hall reneged on or screwed filipe. all this stuff is politics...you see how stuff goes down

Just don't blow up people's personal business and everything is fine.

 

[rekd]

exactly what a 'clear' danger means. did you read my post?

clear isn't a legal term of precision in this context, so if you're gonna use it, please next time define what you mean. if it was incitement or other 1st amendment jurisprudence, it'd have been ok along with "and present"

 

[rekd]

My point is that the maybe not happens a lot of the time. There are lots of scenarios in which I need to have some options other than lethal force.

sure, but you need to also understand your duty to retreat even in NON lethal SD cases along with your culpability for injuries sustained in defending yourself. For example, you bust the guy's nose or choke him or whatever...he has a heart condition or he falls and hits his own head or maybe suffocates on his own vomit...whatever. He dayud. What WAS possibly just misdemeanor battery can escalate to manslaughter based upon shit that just happens.

The opposing counsel in any wrongful death lawsuit or the DA in your manslaughter trial is going to use as an opening statement the highlight reel of how badass you are on this thread as evidence that ANY strike from you should be regarded as deadly force. I mean, after all you are a martial artist and they're fkin deadly.

Now I'm not sayin it's TRUE, I'm only telling you what they will CLAIM. And if the jury is sufficiently stupid (what are the odds?) then the jury might believe these claims and render an adverse decision.

Someone without any ethics prohibitions against rendering advice to break the law would tell you not to stick around after any physical altercation to roll the dice.

You're just playing around now.

no, actually, I've informally known some legitimate badasses over the years, not BJJ guys mind you, but they did other things and were at times bounty hunters, strip club bouncers, smalltime enforcers, etc. This was their advice. You are ALWAYS armed. If you don't want to shoot the guy you pistol whip him. People who do this for a living, and they are out there, are unequivocal and unanimous on this point: everything is about weapons, why break two perfectly good hands punching somebody when you have a 22oz club on your hip?

Just don't blow up people's personal business and everything is fine.

sometimes i like to chip my .02 in

 

[Jagcorps_esq]

sure, but you need to also understand your duty to retreat even in NON lethal SD cases along with your culpability for injuries sustained in defending yourself. For example, you bust the guy's nose or choke him or whatever...he has a heart condition or he falls and hits his own head or maybe suffocates on his own vomit...whatever. He dayud. What WAS possibly just misdemeanor battery can escalate to manslaughter based upon shit that just happens.

You're only going to be liable in situations where you use the inappropriate amount of force, period.

If you are legitimately engaged in an action of self defense and the amount of force that you use is not disproportionate to the amount of force directed at you, you will not suddenly become culpable simply because the person had a pre-existing condition which caused your appropriate force to have "deadly force" consequences.

 

[Balto]

sure, but you need to also understand your duty to retreat even in NON lethal SD cases along with your culpability for injuries sustained in defending yourself. For example, you bust the guy's nose or choke him or whatever...he has a heart condition or he falls and hits his own head or maybe suffocates on his own vomit...whatever. He dayud. What WAS possibly just misdemeanor battery can escalate to manslaughter based upon shit that just happens.

The opposing counsel in any wrongful death lawsuit or the DA in your manslaughter trial is going to use as an opening statement the highlight reel of how badass you are on this thread as evidence that ANY strike from you should be regarded as deadly force. I mean, after all you are a martial artist and they're fkin deadly.

Now I'm not sayin it's TRUE, I'm only telling you what they will CLAIM. And if the jury is sufficiently stupid (what are the odds?) then the jury might believe these claims and render an adverse decision.

Someone without any ethics prohibitions against rendering advice to break the law would tell you not to stick around after any physical altercation to roll the dice.

I understand that. That's why I'd rather use the minimal amount of force required. Of course things can still go wrong, but they are much less likely.

no, actually, I've informally known some legitimate badasses over the years, not BJJ guys mind you, but they did other things and were at times bounty hunters, strip club bouncers, smalltime enforcers, etc. This was their advice. You are ALWAYS armed. If you don't want to shoot the guy you pistol whip him. People who do this for a living, and they are out there, are unequivocal and unanimous on this point: everything is about weapons, why break two perfectly good hands punching somebody when you have a 22oz club on your hip?

You're seriously advocating responding to a non-lethal situation by drawing and pistol whipping the guy with a loaded weapon that is probably in Condition 1? That is a terrible idea.

You talk about how weapons training makes you responsible and not want to brandish. But then you suggest pistol whipping people with loaded weapons as a standard non-lethal self-defense technique which is completely against the teachings of reputable weapons based self-defense.

This is what I mean about it being really hard to see where you are coming from. In one post, you are talking about how responsible firearms training would teach you not to brandish. In another, you are talking about self-defense strategies you got from small time enforcers. It doesn't add up.

sometimes i like to chip my .02 in

Fair enough.

 

[joker26]

So, he fought NINJAS?

yeah, but fight doesn't mean win

 

[akarpenter]

Just for my .02, the guy at my gun dealer was in an physical confrontation one time where the other guy had him pinned to a wall choking him out. He then drew his gun and stuck it in the guys stomach and told him to get the fuck off him, which the guy did. He was later arrested for making "deadly threats" agai st an unarmed assailant. He said he would never draw his gun again unless he was ready to pull the trigger. Charges were later dropped, and maybe he did the rigt thing, but a have to agree with balto on this one. I carry a gun every day, and feel better that I do, but I'm not gonna be the first one to bring weapons into the equation unless there is no other choice.

 

[rekd]

You're only going to be liable in situations where you use the inappropriate amount of force, period.

If you are legitimately engaged in an action of self defense and the amount of force that you use is not disproportionate to the amount of force directed at you, you will not suddenly become culpable simply because the person had a pre-existing condition which caused your appropriate force to have "deadly force" consequences.

Note that I made reference to civil as well as criminal liability. And juries. Your statement is trivially true.

 

[woooo]

No, I responded to that.

The videos do not show real resistance. Do you think that they do?

I don't care that Budo Jake does or did Aikido. It doesn't make me think it is any less flawed. Plenty of BJJ practitioners teach things that are flawed also like some of the Gracie self-defense against a knife. It doesn't work against real resistance. It is dangerous.

Just because someone teaches one thing that is flawed does not mean that I can't respect other things that are taught. Or that I dislike them personally. But it doesn't make me think it is any less flawed.

I don't disagree entirely, but I have no experience with Aikido and see it more as a philosophical / spiritual MA, but it just seems kind of messed up to completely dismiss it entirely. Honestly you would know more than I, but it just seems pretty hard to believe there are no legit Aikido gyms that spar.

 

[rekd]

You're seriously advocating responding to a non-lethal situation by drawing and pistol whipping the guy with a loaded weapon that is probably in Condition 1? That is a terrible idea.

You talk about how weapons training makes you responsible and not want to brandish. But then you suggest pistol whipping people with loaded weapons as a standard non-lethal self-defense technique which is completely against the teachings of reputable weapons based self-defense.

look, man...I'm not going to account for what people say who are armchair weapons instructors as opposed to people who are out in conflicts all the time.

This is what I mean about it being really hard to see where you are coming from. In one post, you are talking about how responsible firearms training would teach you not to brandish. In another, you are talking about self-defense strategies you got from small time enforcers. It doesn't add up.

The bottom line is that doing BJJ for "self defense" is pretty silly.

 

[KoalaJJ]

Yeah, how can being conditioned, confident in and used to off-balancing, controlling and out manoeuvring people, being armed with a multitude of ways to disable an opponent to varying degrees, possibly help in a self defence situation?

 

[Jagcorps_esq]

Note that I made reference to civil as well as criminal liability. And juries. Your statement is trivially true.

My comment is true in a criminal and civil context. And juries.

The concept of self defense isn't altered from one to the next.

P.S. I don't believe that I was correcting you. I was clarifying something you said. No need to "retort."

 

[Darkslide632]

*Snip*

It's a reasonable response, at the very least. I guess I just haven't been exposed to an Aikido school that touts itself as being good for self-defense. My Judo instructors are also Aikido instructors, which is why I've had the opportunity to help them with demonstrations for the bigger club they visit from time to time. I could be wrong. Maybe the whole idea of Aikido being useful for self-defense seems so ridiculous to me that I can't even imagine someone trying to pass it off as being so... except that I can. I've just never ACTUALLY seen that happen.

 

[Balto]

I don't disagree entirely, but I have no experience with Aikido and see it more as a philosophical / spiritual MA, but it just seems kind of messed up to completely dismiss it entirely. Honestly you would know more than I, but it just seems pretty hard to believe there are no legit Aikido gyms that spar.

I don't contend that there are absolutely no Aikido gyms that spar. I am sure there are a few. My contention is that the vast majority do not. That is true.

There are probably gyms in BJJ that don't really spar with real resistance either. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but perhaps flow rolling is the hardest they ever go, and they never compete. I am sure someone could find one somewhere, but they are extremely rare.

If you recommend someone to a BJJ gym, he is overwhelmingly likely to be exposed to real sparring. If you recommend someone to an Aikido gym, he is overwhelmingly likely not to be.

People seem to have no problems accepting that at most BJJ gyms you won't learn takedowns as well as you would at a Judo gym, even though I can think of several examples of BJJ guys who are more skilled than most Judo instructors. The rule is still true in general though, and it is fair to say that BJJ is not as good at takedowns in general as Judo.

People complain about making generalizations about arts. Making generalizations is the whole point of having named arts. If I go into a BJJ school, I am expecting to do groundwork and probably wear a gi. If I wanted to do standup punching in shorts, I would go to a Boxing gym. I understand that I could possibly walk into a BJJ school that was preparing for MMA and doing no gi standup punching training for the whole class, but what are the odds of that?

If you wanted someone to make no assumptions whatsoever about your school, then just call it martial arts and teach what you want. But when you associate your teachings with a named art, you are inviting people to draw conclusions about what the training involves before even trying your school. That is intentional so people can save time. You wouldn't walk into a Tai Chi place and get pissed off that they weren't doing knock down sparring every day, even though I bet you could find one Tai Chi school that did just that.

It's easier to just pretend like fake non-resisting martial arts are special and loveable in their own way. Then nobody argues with you. But the harsh reality is that they perpetuate a lot of bullshit in the martial arts.

 

[Balto]

It's a reasonable response, at the very least. I guess I just haven't been exposed to an Aikido school that touts itself as being good for self-defense. My Judo instructors are also Aikido instructors, which is why I've had the opportunity to help them with demonstrations for the bigger club they visit from time to time. I could be wrong. Maybe the whole idea of Aikido being useful for self-defense seems so ridiculous to me that I can't even imagine someone trying to pass it off as being so... except that I can. I've just never ACTUALLY seen that happen.

I've seen it run the entire gamut. Some guys are convinced it's deadly self-defense after only a few months. I'm not sure that is as much the fault of the art as it is of the guys. People like that are just delusional period.

Some guys never view it as practical at all trained without resistance. All of those guys that I have met have cross trained in other alive arts, and I think that is what gives them the proper perspective.

The most common thing that I see is somewhere in the middle. It's a delusion that creeps up slowly. Initially the thought is that Aikido is not immediately practical, but after years of practicing it starts to morph into it being practical after years of compliant practice. A lot of them start to believe that it won't work after one year, but after thirty years, it will.

That middle ground situation is what makes me cringe when I see a senior Aikido guy handled in front of his students by a low level grappling fraud. It's awkward and a stark reminder of harsh reality. Were something like that to happen in front of a BJJ or Judo class, it would shock people and be taken very seriously.

 

[JerkWeed]

BJJ wins on the mat but Aikido wins on lava since there is no guard-pulling.

 

[woooo]

@ Balto - Good post, thanks for the clarification.

 

[vingian]

I trained aikido for quite a while years ago, and I train BJJ now. I really enjoyed aikido, but I was a cop at the time and didn't have any delusions as to it being "effective" in a fight. Maybe a wristlock or two for control but that's it. I quit training when I ended up moving.

That said, the ukemi was the best thing about aikido. Being able to fall safely in any direction saved me countless times, the occasional trip, falling on ice, mountain biking crashes, and now in BJJ.

The compliance was something that I had to overcome when I started jiu-jitsu. If someone wanted to sweep me, my aikido background would say "ok, let's roll that way". I'm still fighting with it (still a BJJ newbie ~8 months or so).

My attitude hasn't really changed much. As a self-defense system mainstream aikido (aikikai) is shit. It isn't realistic and is focused on responding to largely sword-based stylized attacks. These were the teachings of the founder, and it's been passed on that way. The biggest problems I saw were that as someone gets more experienced doing aikido, uke tends to "read" the intentions of nage and fall the way they are supposed to at the very basic initiation of force on the part of nage. So uke goes in for a straight punch, nage sets up for a kotegaeshi wrist lock, which uke has done thousands of times, and uke does the appropriate ukemi for kotegaeshi as soon as the wrist is turned.

Here's an example of what I mean:

Intermediate Aikido: Mune Tsuki Kotegaeshi - YouTube

I always felt that the best example of aikido was when you were paired with a rank newbie. They don't tend to "move" like an experienced uke does and often times you get the reaction that alot of folks in this thread have talked about.

1) Grab my wrist.
2) No like this.
3) No don't let go when I do the technique.

Which is a valid reaction for a BJJ guy (hell no you aren't doing that to me, I'm resisting!) but really is sort of what aikido is all about. In the aikido mindset, if you let go of my wrist, you are no longer attacking my wrist. Problem solved (until I get punched, but you know what I mean). Aikido is ENTIRELY defensive. The only thing that is even remotely offensive is the idea of atemi (strike) after someone has initiated an attack as a distraction.

The aikido-based systems that incorporate aspects of other training methods (live sparring, resistance, etc) are marginally better, but still involve virtually no ground fighting, so even a basic BJJ guy with good takedowns is going to own an aikidoka IMO. The art just isn't built to address it.

Unfortunately, I think a large part of the delusion that aikido is effective self-defense comes from Segal movies. I know SO many people that got into it because of him.

But I agree with the other poster that said aikido is fun. It's a blast. And working with a high level aikido guy is fun too, as long as you are playing by aikido rules. a 4th Dan or so's ability to play with momentum is really interesting. But it's not self-defense. There are some useful nuggets in aikido, but it is definitely on the flowery side of the martial arts spectrum.