aikido vs sub-wrestling

[rekd]

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."

Um, absolution of criminal and civil liability (in tort) flow from dramatically different bases. I cannot believe you would have claimed such a thing with esq in your handle. Nevermind the standard of proof being vastly divergent.

 

[Jagcorps_esq]

Um, absolution of criminal and civil liability (in tort) flow from dramatically different bases. I cannot believe you would have claimed such a thing with esq in your handle. Nevermind the standard of proof being vastly divergent.

I didn't say that burden of proof was the same. If I had, then you'd be right to make this comment. I didn't say that criminal and civil liability flow from the same base. Again, you'd be right to complain if I had.

Nothing that you have said here changes the fact that the concept of self defense does not change, in definition, from civil to criminal court.

This is why you're a troll.

It's formulaic.

A. Argue a point that the person didn't make, but that is generally true (and irrelevant).

B. Attack the person's skill, intelligence, etc. based on irrelevant argument.

 

[BruceLeeMMA]

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.

The thing is that originally aikido training pressupposed a blackbelt in Pre Olympic/WWII Judo training which would make one proficient in the clinch, against takedowns, and on the ground.

When this requirement was waived and when anyone was allowed to do it is where the problems start to begin.

Even if you take the striking portion out of it, alot of aikido is just hand fighting/grip fighting. Which once you gain a minimal level of wrestling proficiency, then wrestling does comes down to hand fighting anyway, and grabbing wrist control, baseball bat grip, etc. become more important. The so called setup portion of wrestling is like the entry concept in Aikido.

I would also disagree that it is entirely defensive. If you look at the higher level techniques then you can do them off your own wrist grab or crossblock offensively as long as they are using an arm as a line of defense. If they are not using the arm as a line of defense then just blow through their legs with a single or a double. They basically will be giving you an arm either to defend their legs from the takedown or keeping them high to protect their chest/collar area.

As for Seagal he's something like 7th degree blackbelt in Shotokan karate. People seem to forget that but like I said you really need that base in grappling and striking to take advantage of the techniques in aikido.

 

[rekd]

I didn't say that burden of proof was the same. If I had, then you'd be right to make this comment. I didn't say that criminal and civil liability flow from the same base. Again, you'd be right to complain if I had.

Nothing that you have said here changes the fact that the concept of self defense does not change, in definition, from civil to criminal court.

This is why you're a troll.

It's formulaic.

A. Argue a point that the person didn't make, but that is generally true (and irrelevant).

B. Attack the person's skill, intelligence, etc. based on irrelevant argument.

Ah, I see you edited this before I could reply about how was *I* going to argue the law with you. You should know the answer to that based upon the terms of art that I have used. C'mon son.

Don't ever accuse me of strawmanning, kid. I don't do that. You do. I made a statement about civil liability in tort where criminal liability would not attach. I did not feel the need to explain in gory details that gloss lay eyes why this is. And, again, like when I say something about BJJ, a person like you needs to be an expert and you ASSUME without ever asking, that you have superior knowledge, never bothering to address the STATEMENT ITSELF on its merits. Instead, you said I was wrong, am a troll for purporting to argue the law with the likes of YOU, and you continually narrow what it is that you're saying as you go, in order to make your statements more defensible. What was "no difference at all" now becomes "concept of...in definition" and all this other weaseling. What is next, an argument over the definition of "is"?

The statement you made regarding the lack of difference in "self-defense" between civil and criminal law is TRIVIALLY true. Seeing as you have esq on your handle, I expected you to understand what this means. Seeing as you apparently do not, I am now forced to explain. I would hate for people to assume that you have a clue based upon your incessant reiteration that I am a troll.

In the real world, aka to laypeople, this boils down to am I gonna get off or am I gonna get screwed. You can very easily be acquitted or even not charged with a crime and still be found liable simply based upon the vast difference in the burden of proof of each. This means that EFFECTIVELY, there is a GIGANTIC CHASM between the real-world consequences of self-defense in criminal and civil court, while the black letter remains the same. Nevermind jurisdictions with proportional contributory negligence. If some yayhoo with BJJ accidentally breaks someone's neck with a guillotine choke (I know a guy this happened to) of what consequence is it if the cops decide not to charge but you get assessed a 10% contributory proportion of a $50M judgment by a stupid jury who felt sympathetic and KNOWS that a real martial artist should be able to knock people out without hurting them like George Dildo "does"?? On a routine basis, the outcome of criminal and civil proceedings from the same acts are diametrically opposite. Please don't make me cite OJ, ok? Just leave it alone.

 

[Balto]

The thing is that originally aikido training pressupposed a blackbelt in Pre Olympic/WWII Judo training which would make one proficient in the clinch, against takedowns, and on the ground.

Do you have a source for this? I've never seen any source that indicated that this was an official requirement to start training Aikido at any time in its development, but I could be missing something. I know that several dan level guys in Judo and Karate made the switch to Aikido, but I have never seen anything to suggest that was an official rule. As far as I have seen Aikido always accepted beginner students as well as experienced students from other arts.

Also, do you train Aikido? I'm just trying to put things in perspective.

 

[Balto]

I didn't say that burden of proof was the same. If I had, then you'd be right to make this comment. I didn't say that criminal and civil liability flow from the same base. Again, you'd be right to complain if I had.

Nothing that you have said here changes the fact that the concept of self defense does not change, in definition, from civil to criminal court.

This is why you're a troll.

It's formulaic.

A. Argue a point that the person didn't make, but that is generally true (and irrelevant).

B. Attack the person's skill, intelligence, etc. based on irrelevant argument.

rekd is certainly unique.

So far he's a single father attorney who started BJJ in America sometime in the 90s/00s. That would put him solidly in the old American BJJ era of MMA and challenge fighting, but he says BJJ is worthless for self-defense. Instead he advocates pistol whipping fools as a good non-lethal alternative, a technique he learned from his local mob enforcer. I assume he does pistol whip people on a somewhat regular basis because he also considers legitimate firearms self-defense instructors to be armchair experts.

He's also never posted here during his more than a decade of training, but he has just suddenly had a change of heart and started posting like 20 times a day in every thread he can.

 

[BJJ_Rage]

rekd is certainly unique.

So far he's a single father attorney who started BJJ in America sometime in the 90s/00s. That would put him solidly in the old American BJJ era of MMA and challenge fighting, but he says BJJ is worthless for self-defense. Instead he advocates pistol whipping fools as a good non-lethal alternative, a technique he learned from his local mob enforcer. I assume he does pistol whip people on a somewhat regular basis because he also considers legitimate firearms self-defense instructors to be armchair experts.

He's also never posted here during his more than a decade of training, but he has just suddenly had a change of heart and started posting like 20 times a day in every thread he can.

add to that that he has 11 years of bjj and that thinks people is doing berimbolos and 50/50 to fight on the streets.

 

[deadlizard]

This thread was fun until you guys started talking about laws.

In the heat of life and death, no one thinks about what's legal. Can we get back to the techniques?

 

[rekd]

rekd is certainly unique.

So far he's a single father attorney who started BJJ in America sometime in the 90s/00s. That would put him solidly in the old American BJJ era of MMA and challenge fighting, but he says BJJ is worthless for self-defense. Instead he advocates pistol whipping fools as a good non-lethal alternative, a technique he learned from his local mob enforcer. I assume he does pistol whip people on a somewhat regular basis because he also considers legitimate firearms self-defense instructors to be armchair experts.

He's also never posted here during his more than a decade of training, but he has just suddenly had a change of heart and started posting like 20 times a day in every thread he can.

Damn, when you break it down it like that, I sound cool as fuck!!!!

 

[ben35]

The Aikido approach to training without resistance is wrong and dangerous. It doesn't matter who professes it. It's just like the guys in BJJ who teach the Gracie self-defense techniques against the knife as legitimate. The techniques are flawed, and they are trained in the same non-resisting manner as Aikido. That is wrong and dangerous too

Balto, I want to ask you about this. I've never seen the Gracie knife defenses, so I can't comment on whether they make sense or not. But I have trained some of the other Gracie self-defense techniques. And yes we trained them in a mostly compliant fashion. But I don't think that training was worthless. First, I was training them with a group of people who were used to sparring with resistance. We were all used to the idea of taking a technique, say a basic armbar from guard, and drilling slowly at first, in an essentially compliant fashion (give me your arm) and troubleshooting all the steps of it and looking at different setups, knowing that our eventual goal was to apply it in rolling. And I think that philosophy carried over to drilling the self-defense techniques, drilling them the same way, even if we never did the final step of applying the technique in sparring because nobody would grab us like that in sparring. Part of it was that everyone had some grappling knowledge, so had a basic sense of how to grab, how to react, and so on. I don't know exactly why, but I've seen similar self-defense techniques drilled in both BJJ and TMA, and even though in neither case was that specific technique going to be used against live resistance, the people in BJJ practiced it in a much more effective fashion. Second, on one or two occasions I have used the self-defense techniques in rolling at least in a modified form (for example, forms of the rear bearhug defense where you reach under and grab the ankle and modified forms of the armbar over the shoulder against a grab) and they did work, against an opponent with some small amount of training. Of course, I don't have the same confidence in them as the techniques that I use every day, but having some technique to go for is better than none.

To summarize: I totally agree with your point that resistant sparring is essential. But I don't know if I agree that there is no point to drilling the self-defense techniques against less resistance. At worst, I can take something from it and it makes me think of how to use grappling techniques in a situation that I don't encounter often in class.

 

[nerf]

Do you have a source for this? I've never seen any source that indicated that this was an official requirement to start training Aikido at any time in its development, but I could be missing something. I know that several dan level guys in Judo and Karate made the switch to Aikido, but I have never seen anything to suggest that was an official rule. As far as I have seen Aikido always accepted beginner students as well as experienced students from other arts.

Also, do you train Aikido? I'm just trying to put things in perspective.

I've trained aikido for a while, I too wanted to become like Steven Seagal :icon_chee

thing is aikido is not intended to be what most people think (many aikidoka included)

from the founder's mouth

"Atemi (striking) accounts for 99% of Aikido was a remark once uttered by the founder. I introduced atemi at some length in Vol. 4. Atemi is virtually omitted in Aikido training on the ground that [a] preliminary blow should not become a matter of predominant concern. However, there are quite a few cases in which the meaning of a technique becomes incomprehensible if the attendant atemi is left out. I suggest therefore that after reading through Vol. 4, study should be made as to when atemi should be delivered in the execution of a technique and cases of it's omission."


From the book "Total Aikido", written by Shioda Gozo.

pg. 24 - ATEMI - STRIKING (The moment of contact becomes a strike).

"The founder, Ueshiba Sensei, said, In a real battle, atemi is seventy percent, technique is thirty percent. The training that we do in the dojo is designed to teach us various sorts of techniques, the correct way to move our body, effective ways of using our power, and how to create a relationship with the other person." [This quote is repeated on page 19 of "Aikido Shugyo", also by Shioda Gozo].

 

[Balto]

Damn, when you break it down it like that, I sound cool as fuck!!!!

Honestly if I met you and rolled with you, I would probably like you.

 

[Balto]

Balto, I want to ask you about this. I've never seen the Gracie knife defenses, so I can't comment on whether they make sense or not. But I have trained some of the other Gracie self-defense techniques. And yes we trained them in a mostly compliant fashion. But I don't think that training was worthless. First, I was training them with a group of people who were used to sparring with resistance. We were all used to the idea of taking a technique, say a basic armbar from guard, and drilling slowly at first, in an essentially compliant fashion (give me your arm) and troubleshooting all the steps of it and looking at different setups, knowing that our eventual goal was to apply it in rolling. And I think that philosophy carried over to drilling the self-defense techniques, drilling them the same way, even if we never did the final step of applying the technique in sparring because nobody would grab us like that in sparring. Part of it was that everyone had some grappling knowledge, so had a basic sense of how to grab, how to react, and so on. I don't know exactly why, but I've seen similar self-defense techniques drilled in both BJJ and TMA, and even though in neither case was that specific technique going to be used against live resistance, the people in BJJ practiced it in a much more effective fashion. Second, on one or two occasions I have used the self-defense techniques in rolling at least in a modified form (for example, forms of the rear bearhug defense where you reach under and grab the ankle and modified forms of the armbar over the shoulder against a grab) and they did work, against an opponent with some small amount of training. Of course, I don't have the same confidence in them as the techniques that I use every day, but having some technique to go for is better than none.

To summarize: I totally agree with your point that resistant sparring is essential. But I don't know if I agree that there is no point to drilling the self-defense techniques against less resistance. At worst, I can take something from it and it makes me think of how to use grappling techniques in a situation that I don't encounter often in class.

Yeah I follow you. I don't think compliant training is completely worthless -- only worthless when that is the only type of training you have. Obviously we use compliant training in BJJ too when we are drilling. It just has to be constantly viewed through the lens of what it's like to apply a technique against someone who is resisting aggressively.

My problem with the Gracie knife defenses is that they teach things that don't work well at all at full speed in sparring like blocking the knife without moving off line. I have sparred with the training knife full speed in my Kali training, and the defenses are simply technically wrong. You will get cut.

It's hard enough to defend with the technically right defenses, but at least you have a chance. The last time I did this as a test (about a year ago), I was disarming the full resistance knife attacker the way I learned in Kali about 1/3 of the time. When the other guys trained only in the BJJ way tried it against full resistance, they disarmed people none of the time.

 

[EGDM]

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.

I started cross-training after about 8 years in Aikido precisely because along the way I decided that I wanted real technique and knew by 2nd dan that I didn't have it and would never get it training without resistance. I understood the the concepts of timing, movement, and balance manipulation but was fully cognizant, as would anyone who cared enough to think about it, of the gulf between resistant and compliant training. Your various criticisms about the fallacy of achieving strong technique without hard practice are, I think, totally valid.

I will say that the visceral understanding of body mechanics and balance that I developed through ukemi and waza in Aikido have been invaluable BJJ. Additionally, the Aikido framework for presenting footwork, angles, timing, and blending is comparatively sophisticated and powerful, although it's also mostly inapplicable unless you also know how to deal with real speed and resistance. I make no claims at being a BJJ savant, but without these tools there's no way I'd otherwise be looking at my purple belt around the corner after only slightly more than two years of 2-4 day per week training starting in my 30's. (BJJ has also removed much of the stylization from my Aikido technique and made it much harder - a change for the better.)

All that said, if I could rewind the clock and start my martial journey over again, I would begin by studying primarily newaza-heavy Judo and some kind of boxing/kickboxing. I by no means regret the time I spent (and still spend) in Aikido, because at that time in my life I wasn't really interested in the reality of unarmed fighting. (I originally started in foil fencing before moving briefly to karate and then Iaido and Aikido.) However, the older I get the less interested I am affectations and the less patient I become with delusions. There really is no other answer to the question, "Does my technique really work?" than "I don't know, let's try it!" Being uninterested in that question is one thing, but answering it differently does everyone a disservice.

Do you have a source for this? I've never seen any source that indicated that this was an official requirement to start training Aikido at any time in its development, but I could be missing something. I know that several dan level guys in Judo and Karate made the switch to Aikido, but I have never seen anything to suggest that was an official rule. As far as I have seen Aikido always accepted beginner students as well as experienced students from other arts.

There was never any formal rule, at least as far as I understand from the 4-5 direct students of Ueshiba that I've spent time with over the years. Many of the early students had significant experience in karate/judo/kendo/etc but there was no requirement. At the very least I know that Yoshimitsu Yamada Shihan, the current head of the US Aikido Federation, had no martial background prior to starting Aikido.

 

[BruceLeeMMA]

There was never any formal rule, at least as far as I understand from the 4-5 direct students of Ueshiba that I've spent time with over the years. Many of the early students had significant experience in karate/judo/kendo/etc but there was no requirement. At the very least I know that Yoshimitsu Yamada Shihan, the current head of the US Aikido Federation, had no martial background prior to starting Aikido.

Yamada was 5 years old when world war II ended. He didn't start training till he was 17 in 1955.

That would place him in the class of people who learned from Ueshiba post WWII.

After the nuclear bomb, along with the American GHQ martial arts ban, Ueshiba stopped teaching and moved to the country to farm. At the same time he had a change in attitude because of the nuclear bomb that killed all those people. When he started teaching again he decided to make Aikido about peace (instead of for fighting and war) and decided to allow everyone to learn it (Kind of like Gracie Barra, jiu jitsu for everyone, not that there's anything wrong with that).

Got to go, so will continue this post later.

 

[EGDM]

will continue this post later.

I'm aware of the history and timing. All I said is that I'm not aware of any formal rule, the people I know that knew Ueshiba never mentioned it, and there are counter-examples (so there was definitely no rule during some of the time). If you've got an actual primary source to indicate otherwise, of course, that would be conclusive.

 

[BJJ_Rage]

Yamada was 5 years old when world war II ended. He didn't start training till he was 17 in 1955.

That would place him in the class of people who learned from Ueshiba post WWII.

After the nuclear bomb, along with the American GHQ martial arts ban, Ueshiba stopped teaching and moved to the country to farm. At the same time he had a change in attitude because of the nuclear bomb that killed all those people. When he started teaching again he decided to make Aikido about peace (instead of for fighting and war) and decided to allow everyone to learn it (Kind of like Gracie Barra, jiu jitsu for everyone, not that there's anything wrong with that).

Got to go, so will continue this post later.

bro, ueshibas aikido pre WWII (there are some videos of that time) its exactly if not worst than post WWII aikido...

 

[Balto]

Yeah the only time I have ever heard that originally you had to have a solid base in something else before you were allowed to train Aikido is on here. I'm almost positive that is a myth.

Also, the idea that Aikido had realistic resistance training pre-WWII seems to be another myth. There is footage floating around of Ueshiba demonstrating and teaching before the war. It is the same compliant uke style that you see now.

Here is a pre-WWII video from YouTube. It is the same compliant type stuff that is seen in almost every other Aikido video.



I'm sure the style did evolve over time and particularly after WWII. My point is that the story that Aikido had a lot of real resistance training before WWII doesn't seem to add up.

 

[Balto]

bro, ueshibas aikido pre WWII (there are some videos of that time) its exactly if not worst than post WWII aikido...

Yeah all the videos I have ever seen of that time are chock full of him flinging off multiple attackers magically with one hand and stuff.

At what point does it become obvious that people trying to defend Aikido's practicality are grasping at straws? If you have to search endlessly to find that mythical one example of Aikido with real resistance to prove your point, isn't it fair to say that the art just doesn't do that? And it probably never did?

There is no evidence that there ever was a rule requiring Aikido students to have studied other arts first.

There is also no evidence that Aikido made use of training against fully resisting opponents before WWII. In fact, the video evidence shows the same type of compliant training philosophy that is still used.

This is the same with all the "exception" schools in any art. You know that JJJ school that beats every BJJ school in grappling competitions, that Kung Fu school that beats all the MMA fighters -- it always starts to muddle when the real names get involved, but you know THAT one that is there in the place on the road between the building and the other building. That's the one that should represent the whole art.

The vast majority of schools in any art do not claim to be the exception. And of the few that do claim to be the exception, the vast majority of them are just delusional and really part of the rule. A tiny portion are actually the exception -- so tiny as to be imperceptible to many of us as we have been unable to ever meet one in the flesh.

But when someone makes a statement about an art as a whole, you'd better believe that tiny of sliver of an exception is coming right to the forefront to defend the whole thing.

People just want to believe in things like ninjas and ki. It's easier to believe some ridiculously complex justification for Aikido where the supporting evidence has all been destroyed than it is to accept the fact that the founder was really just a cult member who went from crazy to batshit over his lifetime. Interestingly enough, there seems to be plenty of surviving supporting evidence for that one.

 

[BJJ_Rage]

Yeah all the videos I have ever seen of that time are chock full of him flinging off multiple attackers magically with one hand and stuff.

At what point does it become obvious that people trying to defend Aikido's practicality are grasping at straws? If you have to search endlessly to find that mythical one example of Aikido with real resistance to prove your point, isn't it fair to say that the art just doesn't do that? And it probably never did?

There is no evidence that there ever was a rule requiring Aikido students to have studied other arts first.

There is also no evidence that Aikido made use of training against fully resisting opponents before WWII. In fact, the video evidence shows the same type of compliant training philosophy that is still used.

This is the same with all the "exception" schools in any art. You know that JJJ school that beats every BJJ school in grappling competitions, that Kung Fu school that beats all the MMA fighters -- it always starts to muddle when the real names get involved, but you know THAT one that is there in the place on the road between the building and the other building. That's the one that should represent the whole art.

The vast majority of schools in any art do not claim to be the exception. And of the few that do claim to be the exception, the vast majority of them are just delusional and really part of the rule. A tiny portion are actually the exception -- so tiny as to be imperceptible to many of us as we have been unable to ever meet one in the flesh.

But when someone makes a statement about an art as a whole, you'd better believe that tiny of sliver of an exception is coming right to the forefront to defend the whole thing.

People just want to believe in things like ninjas and ki. It's easier to believe some ridiculously complex justification for Aikido where the supporting evidence has all been destroyed than it is to accept the fact that the founder was really just a cult member who went from crazy to batshit over his lifetime. Interestingly enough, there seems to be plenty of surviving supporting evidence for that one.

I absolutely agree with all you have said.