What is Akido?

[Steeltwo]

Actually, that was HAPKIDO. The whole point of the movie was to show that "alive" and realistic training would beat dead styles like hapkido and the others on the floors. That was Bruce's whole point.

Aikido is not good for self defence at all. Its more of the art and less of the martial. I don't know why its practioners still try to say that it is eefctive in self defence. The wrist locks and bars are a nice trick, but only effective against grabs or holds. If the opponent rushes you, you're SOOL if you depend on their techniques. Anything other than a wild haymaker or a wrist ot shirt grab is beyond them.

Now I did see the pictures of Ueshiba doing the side choke and others. One has to wonder why he never included those in the curriculum? I guess he had to hold some stuff back to maintain legendary status. No wonder he was destroying all his ukes well into his old age. He never taught them leg trips, chokes or leg locks but used them himself..lol.. :icon_twis

With that said, if someone enjoys the art (I used to take aikijutsu mysel), then great for them.

really?

i swear in the documentary they said he was a Aikido guy?


my favorite line in the movie was.

your art is not flexible, my bamboo stick is.
as he whooped the shizzie out of the eskrema guy.

 

[triso]

VampireMonk, I hope you are kidding with that reponse.

 

[VampireMonk]

yeah the guy that Bruce Lee fights in Game of death is a Hapkido master.

the instructor of the korean TKD guy in Return of the dragon, Wong Ing Sink.

what's wrong with my last response? what do you disagree with?

 

[eljamaiquino]

really?

i swear in the documentary they said he was a Aikido guy?


my favorite line in the movie was.

your art is not flexible, my bamboo stick is.
as he whooped the shizzie out of the eskrema guy.

Its hapkido, they are very similar arts though...The founder of hapkido supposedly studied under the same school of Dait-Ryu Akijutsu as Ueshiba...
and yes, Mr Inosanto got a whipping in that flick...

 

[triso]

believe it or not, when trained properly Aikido will be one of the most realistic tools you can
have in your arsenal, for example,
you can just look at a guy, just look, and tell if he can kick your butt or not.
think of the benefits you get from this.
so many of us don't know for sure if we can or cant, so the ego takes over, we get into
fights, and it was a waste, Aikido will help you avoid this, and fight for a TRUE reason.
When a guy wrongfully attacks you, and you fight back, you almost justify his reason to keep
fighting you, in essence you want to take away his reason to fight you, make him reflect on himself.

you can mount a guy and punch his face, in total dominance.
he may cower at you, he may want to take up BJJ so he can be an A-hole too.
Or if he is a fighter he may train hard to defeat you. and if he can't wouldnt you feel empty?
if he does, wouldnt you give him credit?
now wouldnt it be great if you can get the mount, and look at him, and he looks back up,
and sees you relaxed and in totaly control and says hey lets stop this.
and when you do, your opponent may talk smack, he may have a warped point of view,
but those are all insecurities, and since you didn't hand him his ass, he may acutally be more
open to reflect on what just happened and become a better person, THIS IS AIKIDO.

Need I say more?

 

[farmboy]

Aikido is the art of making people fall while making it look like you threw them.

No, it's the art of the other people doing backflips onto their stomachs while making it look like you threw them. It takes 2 to tango.

 

[Jitsuman]

anybody looking at Aikido from a technical stand point doesn't get it.

The art is mental dude.
and yeah you can watch Blood sport before a match and get your mental strength too,
That is TRUE I dont not disagree with that, but think about it, watch blood sport or
compared to someone who trains their mind day in day out, just like the way you
have been training your moves in BJJ, or Thaiboxing, but for the mind, can't this
be effective?

believe it or not, when trained properly Aikido will be one of the most realistic tools you can
have in your arsenal, for example,
you can just look at a guy, just look, and tell if he can kick your butt or not.
think of the benefits you get from this.
so many of us don't know for sure if we can or cant, so the ego takes over, we get into
fights, and it was a waste, Aikido will help you avoid this, and fight for a TRUE reason.
When a guy wrongfully attacks you, and you fight back, you almost justify his reason to keep
fighting you, in essence you want to take away his reason to fight you, make him reflect on himself.

you can mount a guy and punch his face, in total dominance.
he may cower at you, he may want to take up BJJ so he can be an A-hole too.
Or if he is a fighter he may train hard to defeat you. and if he can't wouldnt you feel empty?
if he does, wouldnt you give him credit?
now wouldnt it be great if you can get the mount, and look at him, and he looks back up,
and sees you relaxed and in totaly control and says hey lets stop this.
and when you do, your opponent may talk smack, he may have a warped point of view,
but those are all insecurities, and since you didn't hand him his ass, he may acutally be more
open to reflect on what just happened and become a better person, THIS IS AIKIDO.
sometimes YES it takes a hammer to make a person realize their fault, sometimes you
just can't help a person realize. this is why we have other styles, other methods.
This is why sometimes we don't always win by submission, but have to pound the guy,
or smother and win by decision LOL

1. "Mental" ok, lets get something straight. While "mental toughness" can be important, it's nothing compared to physical ability when a fight breaks out. Remember Mike White head (from TUF) talking about mental toughness? He got the shit kicked out of him a half hour later. Being mentally tough is great, as long as you can back it up with physical ability. Unfortunately Akaido guys can't seem to do this. Besides, as far as I can tell Aikido makes people mentally **weak** at least that's the deduction I get from your posts.

2. Please back up your claim of "Aikido gives you the most realistic tools in a fight". This entire thread you've made alot of bullshit claims that you have not backed up with any evidence at all. is this another bullshit claim? I'm assuming the answer is 'yes'. And no, you're wrong about being able to look at a guy and tell you can kick his ass, that's a moronic assumption that will get your head caved in one day.

3. Mounting a guy and puching his lights out does not make you an asshole. It makes you a person who can defend himself. Beating people up is only bad if you're the kind of prick who assaults people for no reason. Are you claiming that BJJ people are all assholes because we can hold the mount? This is more stupidity on your part. As far as the guy deciding: "hey lets stop this" what, are you 13 years old or something? The kind of people *I'm* affraid of are the psychos that might be trying to rob/murder/rape my girlfriend. If I mount one of these bastards you can bet I'm going to punish them. Maybe you're talking about Jr highschool playground fights? I'm not.

4. As I stated before, stop the psuedo-philosophical nonsense. your bullshit hammer analogy is rediculous. I dont care about a rapist, drunk, or psycho's well being, I dont care about teaching him a moral lesson. I care about gettinng away unhurt by inflicting the most damage possible in the least amount of time.

5. Grow up.

 

[VampireMonk]

1. agree with you that many Aikido-ka are weak fighters. I think in the pursuit of being a good
fighter we end up doing lots of harms to others. Think of the beatings you have given other
people. Maybe not that bad physically, but mentally, they go home with that, how do you think
they feel? Maybe they took it out on their kid, because you had to get that armbar in record time.
that sux doesn't it? There are people like that, back then, Morihei and Kano had students
cross train in their respective arts.
The Gracies compliment their BJJ with Boxing or Thaiboxing, some wrestling, and guess what,
Yoga. helps the mind bro. Some prefer Yoga, others like Aikido, some guys like Sergei like
to jump out of airplanes to train his mind, or Fedor likes to train outside in the mountains.
2. so in your case you will always be challenged then. with a mentality like that, always looking
for a challenge, your more likely to escalate and turn a situation into a fight with the slightest
provokings when it can be avoided. Not all fights are against rapists or a extreme situation.
Just like this thread your words are fighting me, is it necessary? Or can we just disscuss and
exchange ideas, I'm not trying to defend myself or force my opinion down on you.
I just hope that some of the other guys reading this stuff may enjoy what I'm writing!
3. everybody has different levels they can handle. if your advanced you can handle a rapist
in an advanced way. Aikido is about the WAY you do things, sure at 1st you need to be able
to get things done period, but once you can to a certain level, then the next step is to learn the
manner in which you do so. maybe it was a bad example for you, but I think you can figure
out what I'm saying. Like in BJJ, you can learn from an instructor that says, this is how you do
an armbar, what are you stupid, like this! And he is not the nicest person on earth but his
skills are solid. I'd rather go to a nice instructor who will try and tell me, hey I'm not sure
if this is right, but I think it was like this, let's experiment on the mat. You see How can be
important.
4. a shallow perspective, for you a military style of just ripping a new hole is suitable,
this is why Aikido is advanced. Just like in MMA, submissions is advanced, it takes
skill to submit someone compared to ground and pound pummel the day lights out of the guy.
5. me grow up? your talking with a lot of anger and cuss words.

 

[Blaxican]

Cool. So you fully admitt your art has no realistic application to fighting.

Thanks, thats all I really wanted. enjoy your psuedo-philosophy.

by the way, your "4 on 1" drill? I've seen the same thing many times in Aikido classes, interestingly enough whenever I see it, it's the exact opposite of what you say. 4 guys run at the black belt, and then flip themselves on the floor like imbeciles. It's good to know your high belts allow themselves to have the shit kicked out of them with no possible room for gain. By the way, if it were a "free-roll" as YOU said, than the guy getting attacked would be brutally murdered each time. The fact of the matter is that it's a bullshit staged drill. Nothing can be gained by being thrown on the ground and stomped to oblivion. You're either lying or stupid. (or both) In case you didn't notice you've made an obvious flip-flop here, *now* you're claiming the purpose of your 'drill' is to LOSE, which is quite a change of pace from your original post.

oh, and I know the concept of 'evidence' bothers you, but if you really want to argue your BS 4 vs. 1 point, show me one clip of 4 attackers beating up a high ranking Aikidoka, because I can google it, and find hundreds of clips of the exact opposite happening. but yeah, reality sure is a bitch, eh?

Also, shut the fuck up about the effectivness of Judo, we all know it's effective. The problem is Aikido, which without 'borrowing' from styles that work is uneffective and nonsensicle.

Also, shut the fuck up with "you proved my point by saying it's no use to you" that's right, it's no use to me, nor anyone else interested in fighting.

You Win. :wink:

Yes I did admit that Aikido is difficult to apply in any fighting situation. But as someone has already mentioned here, a true aikidoka avoids conflict and if they have any skill at all, should be able to avoid a situation that could possibly escalate to fighting.

Thank you, I do enjoy my pseudo-philosophy. I might mention that I am continually surprised that most aikidoka are some of the nicest people I have ever met. So again we see the difference between people interested in martial arts for the combat aspect, and people that enjoy martial arts for all the other, useful lessons they can teach you and make you a better person inside and outside of the dojo (or gym).

Yes, again you are correct about the 4 vs 1. Shite-Randori is a fixed drill where the defender knows what attack is coming and what technique to use, and is somewhat able to plan his defence. This is clearly staged and I have seen many people quit because it's not realistic enough. But in Ju-Randori, the defender does not know the attack and does not have a pre-determined technique to use, so how can it be staged? The purpose of the drill is not to lose, but to be introduced to the situation to think about how to get out of it. I could be both lying and stupid for all you know.

Reality is a bitch sometimes, that's for sure. I might also point out that MMA borrows from all types of fighting styles so how is this different from aikido? Ueshiba Sensei borrowed from judo since he saw it as an effective defence to ground attacks.

You touch on an interesting point at the end. Aikido is of no use to anyone interested in fighting. This is absolutely true. I for one, am not interested in fighting. Why are you interested in fighting? Unless you make money doing this, it is of little use in real life. Our senior Sensei, Patrick Auge Sensei, once told us a story; He had practiced judo for years (competitive, he participated in games representing France) and moved to aikido for many more years. He dedicated his life to his study and practiced diligently. Yet in his life (he is now approximately 65 yrs) he has had the opportunity to use his skills maybe 3 times. So why practice all the time? It's for all the other lessons that he learned while practicing.

I originally did not want to start anything remotely like this when I posted to this thread. It seemed that the information about aikido was lacking and I wanted to try and add what I know about the art.

I leave you with a few questions; why are you so concerned with what people think about aikido? Why can you not get your points across without resorting to diminishing what others do to elevate yourself above them? Why the need to curse as you explain yourself? Another web-warrior, ready to defend himself and what he loves, I suppose. I hope you enjoy your classes and I also hope that someday you will realize that effectiveness and real life fighting are not all that martial arts should be about.

 

[Gregster]

This is not the 'BJJ' forum. This is the grappling forum. In case you didn't notice, no one knocks sambo, wrestling, judo, catch, Etc. here. We're all about arts that work. Period.

I thought most serious practitioners were "about arts that work."

I sense some BJJ hatred here, and from your other posts in the forum.

You sense wrong. My girlfriend trains BJJ, I'm impressed with it, and I intended to start training BJJ myself months ago except my work schedule changed abruptly. Assuming it doesn't again this quarter, I intend to start training in a couple of weeks.

I think BJJ is great. It's the attitude of many of the practitioners that bugs me.

Aikido isn't much of a grappling art, frankly, which is why it does not get respect here.

Re-read my line about Aikido being discussed in a grappling context.

The argument "What is effective in MMA is effective, period" is actually a pretty good argument. This is Sherdog you're on, we're all about proving the effectivness of arts through fighting competition on this site.

Of course. Since I know all the fights I've been in, and seen, have been between professional ass-kickers in an octagon with rounds, rules, and refs. That's why you should only train what works in MMA. Abso-lutely.

If you dont like it, go to martialartsplanet where you can talk to a bunch of Psuedo-asian-wannabies who might find your posting style to be reasonable and intelligent. On Sherdog we like evidence.

I've been here awhile, dude. Please, please, please get the fuck over yourself.

The problem with Aikido's 'philosophical' approach is that it's quite simply, poor philosophy. If you want to learn philosophy it's best to do it at a respected university and learn from a professor with credentials to back up his understanding of the subject matter. Getting philosophy lessons from a putz at an aikido school who doesn't know Descartes from Mr. Rogers is a waste of time.

I like how you transition so seamlessly from talking about how you like evidence and being in serious discussions that get down to brass-tacks and facts and then flaunt your ignorance of the topic.

various claims about "my instructer beat this guy up with this and that..." dont hold any water.

Oh, so now we're *NOT* about what works? Golly, I must have misunderstood. Sure, he bounced for years and has been in dozens of street fights...but he didn't tattoo his ass and compete MMA, so I guess that don't count.

Sombody with no training at all could easily throw a drunken retard with no balance.

You've obviously not seen a whole lot of bar brawls, then.

That is, if you're able to substantiate your claim at all.

Oh, of course. Pardon me while I go find the page on the national database that stores the win/loss records of part-time bar bouncers going back to 1993 to get the proof on that.

Also, all the information you posted to "clear things up" can be found with a google search in 30 seconds. Dont pat yourself on the back too hard, now.

And yet practically nobody could seem to dig that info up. Amazing.

 

[Blaxican]

Oh well I had to do it - 50 posts yipee!

 

[Jitsuman]

I thought most serious practitioners were "about arts that work."

You sense wrong. My girlfriend trains BJJ, I'm impressed with it, and I intended to start training BJJ myself months ago except my work schedule changed abruptly. Assuming it doesn't again this quarter, I intend to start training in a couple of weeks.

I think BJJ is great. It's the attitude of many of the practitioners that bugs me.

Re-read my line about Aikido being discussed in a grappling context.

Of course. Since I know all the fights I've been in, and seen, have been between professional ass-kickers in an octagon with rounds, rules, and refs. That's why you should only train what works in MMA. Abso-lutely.

I like how you transition so seamlessly from talking about how you like evidence and being in serious discussions that get down to brass-tacks and facts and then flaunt your ignorance of the topic.

Oh, so now we're *NOT* about what works? Golly, I must have misunderstood. Sure, he bounced for years and has been in dozens of street fights...but he didn't tattoo his ass and compete MMA, so I guess that don't count.

You've obviously not seen a whole lot of bar brawls, then.

Oh, of course. Pardon me while I go find the page on the national database that stores the win/loss records of part-time bar bouncers going back to 1993 to get the proof on that.

1. You dislike BJJ people's attitudes, but you dont train in it, and still date your girlfriend. hrrm..

2. There is no relevent/live grappling in the vast majority of Aikido, this is the grappling forum. Go back 2 pages where I post an article about the lack of Aikido groundwork,also.

3. I dont care what fights you have been in, claim to have been in, or your instructers have been in. My point was that 'bar brawls' dont make for the best proof of relevent fighting techniques. Most so called bar fights are 'tall-tales' with over glorified endings. Most real bar fights end up with either A. one guy getting a bottle over the head, or B. somebody getting arrested. The reason why bar fights are not counted as reasonable evidence by me, and other rational people, is because quite frankly, most of the stories about them posted on internet message boards are bullshit. I've yet to hear one martial arts instructer say: "yeah I got in a bar fight, hit over the head with a bud light, and arrested!" You of course know nothing about this though, and I'll simply take your word on it. (fax me over your long criminal record) :icon_twis

4. lets not pretend that MMA has no practical use in finding out what styles work, ok? once again, this is Sherdog, it's an MMA site. Further more, the first 5 UFC's had no time limits, and barely any rules. They proved many things, for example: **the effectivness of groundfighting!!!** If you want to stick your head up your ass and claim that the original UFC's were NOT about finding the best fighting style, then please do so. This is however what it was inntended to be, despite *some* shortcomings.

5. Please show me one example of any ignorance on any topic I've shown. I''ve not made one claim I have not backed up with reason, logic, or facts. That's your job, Mr. bar fighter.

6. I've been a few fights myself, they never end well. Notice I'm not giving you over-glorified bullshit stories about them to solidify my points? You know why? Because the fact remains that the best way to decide what is effective is to do so in a neutral/controlled/scientific manner. (like MMA, for instance) I know you hate that I keep beating you over the head with this obvious point..but god dammit, why dont you listen? Again.. **bar fights are not exactly the best way to show effective fighting techniques, they're more for proving who is more psychotic and crimminal than the other person** Tank Abbots a bar fighter...he must have effective technique!

7. Please for the love of God at least admit the above point is correct.

 

[Jitsuman]

Yes I did admit that Aikido is difficult to apply in any fighting situation. But as someone has already mentioned here, a true aikidoka avoids conflict and if they have any skill at all, should be able to avoid a situation that could possibly escalate to fighting.

Thank you, I do enjoy my pseudo-philosophy. I might mention that I am continually surprised that most aikidoka are some of the nicest people I have ever met. So again we see the difference between people interested in martial arts for the combat aspect, and people that enjoy martial arts for all the other, useful lessons they can teach you and make you a better person inside and outside of the dojo (or gym).

Yes, again you are correct about the 4 vs 1. Shite-Randori is a fixed drill where the defender knows what attack is coming and what technique to use, and is somewhat able to plan his defence. This is clearly staged and I have seen many people quit because it's not realistic enough. But in Ju-Randori, the defender does not know the attack and does not have a pre-determined technique to use, so how can it be staged? The purpose of the drill is not to lose, but to be introduced to the situation to think about how to get out of it. I could be both lying and stupid for all you know.

Reality is a bitch sometimes, that's for sure. I might also point out that MMA borrows from all types of fighting styles so how is this different from aikido? Ueshiba Sensei borrowed from judo since he saw it as an effective defence to ground attacks.

You touch on an interesting point at the end. Aikido is of no use to anyone interested in fighting. This is absolutely true. I for one, am not interested in fighting. Why are you interested in fighting? Unless you make money doing this, it is of little use in real life. Our senior Sensei, Patrick Auge Sensei, once told us a story; He had practiced judo for years (competitive, he participated in games representing France) and moved to aikido for many more years. He dedicated his life to his study and practiced diligently. Yet in his life (he is now approximately 65 yrs) he has had the opportunity to use his skills maybe 3 times. So why practice all the time? It's for all the other lessons that he learned while practicing.

I originally did not want to start anything remotely like this when I posted to this thread. It seemed that the information about aikido was lacking and I wanted to try and add what I know about the art.

I leave you with a few questions; why are you so concerned with what people think about aikido? Why can you not get your points across without resorting to diminishing what others do to elevate yourself above them? Why the need to curse as you explain yourself? Another web-warrior, ready to defend himself and what he loves, I suppose. I hope you enjoy your classes and I also hope that someday you will realize that effectiveness and real life fighting are not all that martial arts should be about.

dammit, you're just too nice to flame. :icon_cry2

 

[triso]

In my limited experience, i've found grapplers who train Jiu Jitsu to have a real appreciation for other grappling arts such as Wrestling, Judo, and Sambo. I'm sure there are some people out there who are fanboys and just by into the my style is the best style bullshit, but for the most part, Jiu Jitsu guys are very realistic when it comes to the skills of these other arts.

 

[Gregster]

1. You dislike BJJ people's attitudes, but you dont train in it, and still date your girlfriend. hrrm..

Very clever...is there a point to be found in there? I said I dislike *many* BJJ practitioners attitudes, not all of them. Pay attention, please.

2. There is no relevent/live grappling in the vast majority of Aikido, this is the grappling forum. Go back 2 pages where I post an article about the lack of Aikido groundwork,also.

I didn't start the thread, and for the third time, I'm aware it's not a grappling art. I addressed the nonsense posted about it.

3. I dont care what fights you have been in, claim to have been in, or your instructers have been in. My point was that 'bar brawls' dont make for the best proof of relevent fighting techniques.

Of course. Actual fighting is absolutely no measure of fighting effectiveness. You've convinced me.

The reason why bar fights are not counted as reasonable evidence by me, and other rational people, is because quite frankly, most of the stories about them posted on internet message boards are bullshit.

Even better: because you say so, and claim to know what most rational people think, my personal experiences and observations are now null and void.

Here's a clue for you, Capt. Clueless: reality is not defined by your opinions.

I've yet to hear one martial arts instructer say: "yeah I got in a bar fight, hit over the head with a bud light, and arrested!" You of course know nothing about this though, and I'll simply take your word on it. (fax me over your long criminal record) :icon_twis

Thanks for telling me what I know. And thanks for alluding to the crimminal record I came nowhere near having resulting from the wild life I never claimed to have lived.

4. lets not pretend that MMA has no practical use in finding out what styles work, ok?

Never said that, just that it was not the only measure, not the "end-all/be all." Learn to read.

once again, this is Sherdog, it's an MMA site.

And if we're discussig what works in MMA, the case is open and shut. But that's not what we're discussing, is it?

Further more, the first 5 UFC's had no time limits, and barely any rules.

I remember that.

They proved many things, for example: **the effectivness of groundfighting!!!**

And later proved that when people adapt and cross-train, that BJJ is not invincible.

If you want to stick your head up your ass and claim that the original UFC's were NOT about finding the best fighting style, then please do so. This is however what it was inntended to be, despite *some* shortcomings.

I remember what they were supposed to be; I read the pay-per-view ads before paying to watch. I also remember sitting in my living room telling my friends what Gracie was about to do to win right before he did it.

5. Please show me one example of any ignorance on any topic I've shown. I''ve not made one claim I have not backed up with reason, logic, or facts. That's your job, Mr. bar fighter.

Your profound ingnorance of Aikido by likening it to a college philosophy class. I've had philosophy classes in colleges, and throws and jointlocks were not in the curriculum.

6. I've been a few fights myself, they never end well. Notice not giving you over-glorified bullshit stories about them to solidify my points?

And where did I? I said my instructor used a *BASIC* Aikido throw to put down a charging drunk.. You said that this was a feat that any untrained person could pull off..and now it's some wild, glorified bullshit story?

Way to contradict yourself.

You know why? Because the fact remains that the best way to decide what is effective is to do so in a neutral/controlled/scientific manner. (like MMA, for instance)

Of course, because street fights are neutral and controlled.

Again.. **bar fights are not exactly the best way to show effective fighting techniques, they're more for proving who is more psychotic and crimminal than the other person** Tank Abbots a bar fighter...he must have effective technique!

Conversely, no pro boxer or MMA fighter has never lost a street fight?

7. Please for the love of God at least admit the above point is correct.

You're correct that being a good bar brawler != being a great MMA fighter. Now then: what are the odds you're going to get into a random mixed martial arts competition on the street?

 

[VampireMonk]

in the short run. let's say fighting in a sport in 2 months notice,
probably not best to train in Aikido.

but in the long run, Aikido is great, I wanted to try Aikido after I learn some fighting
skills like Thaiboxing and BJJ. I didn't want to get into Tai Chi and Aikido without
those experiences, because I have met guys that I felt like I could WOOP in a heart beat.
Now I can see the benefits in doing both.

plus also Aikido develops the warrior mind, and I believe that 90% of fighting is mental.
if in a real fight, in the street, in war, its all about out smarting your opponent, then
perhaps its not even necessary to devote so much time in physical competition....

 

[Jitsuman]

This is the only point I'm going to respond to, because you didn't actaully respond to any of mine, other than 'snarky' answers such as "I know, duh!" "I dont have a criminal record, duh" "philosophy isn't about joint locks, duh!"

you're being dense on purpose so I'll avoid that stuff.

now, back to your quote: I never said being a bar brawler means being a good MMA fighter, that's moronic. I'm sure you've seen the Kimbo Slice fight? Proof positive that being a good street fighter has nothing to do with being a good fighter, nor having a good fighting style. Even Mitch "gas out in 2 seconds" Gannon is out of the league of any so called streetfighter in hand to hand combat.

This is not a claim I made, and if you think it is you're not reading correctly. Why can't you justy admit that I'm right? That the best way to find what MARTIAL ART works best in one on one combat situation is to test it under controlled conditions? A bar fight isn't about controlled conditions, and it isn't about finding the best fighter OR best fighting style, period.

Since you ignored my point, here it is again. **Bar/Streetfighting tends to be about who is willing to engage in the most criminal behavior with the least moral scruples** that person tends to win. Ali, Royce, O' Sensei, Kano, whoever..It doesnt matter, they have as much chance in a bar fight as you or I. Less chance than the bar tender hiding the shotgun behind the jack Daneils case.

In this kind of situation the best fighting style is GUN FU (get it) or Knife Fu (double ha) this is why you can't really measure what works best in a bar fight. get it? Put an Aikido guy against a trained fighter of almost any other art, you get a flattened Aikido guy. I find that to be a better method of measuring combat effectivness.

PS: If we're talking about Aikido (as you implied with your last post) why do you keep mentioning BJJ (and in turn, flip out when I mention MMA)? I just dont get it.

PPS: even the best fighter in the world can lose a bar fight. Obviously Boxers, MMA fighters can and have lost them before. But as stated, this has nothing to do with the ability to rationally judge the effectiveness of a fighting art.

 

[VampireMonk]

your right in street many chances you take, many unknown it can get really bad
like knives and guns bad.
for sure you can't use MMA then. Can you use Aikido? I think yes. This is what is was
made for. Not to disarm the gun, or dodge bullets, hehehe, but to difuse the situation.
And sometimes it cannot be, so hopefully the Aikido-ka will KNOW before hand if it is
possible or they need to use some really deceptive means.

 

[Gregster]

This is the only point I'm going to respond to, because you didn't actaully respond to any of mine, other than 'snarky' answers such as "I know, duh!" "I dont have a criminal record, duh" "philosophy isn't about joint locks, duh!"

you're being dense on purpose so I'll avoid that stuff.

I love it when guys talk smack and then suddenly try and claim the rhetorical high ground. And if my answers sounded dense, it was because I was responding to dense points.

now, back to your quote: I never said being a bar brawler means being a good MMA fighter, that's moronic. I'm sure you've seen the Kimbo Slice fight? Proof positive that being a good street fighter has nothing to do with being a good fighter, nor having a good fighting style. Even Mitch "gas out in 2 seconds" Gannon is out of the league of any so called streetfighter in hand to hand combat.

You were, I thought, pointing to a good brawler and not-so-great MMA fighter (Tank) to show streetfighting and MMA were different, and skill at one doesn't transfer necessarily to the other. I was wrong?

This is not a claim I made, and if you think it is you're not reading correctly. Why can't you justy admit that I'm right? That the best way to find what MARTIAL ART works best in one on one combat situation is to test it under controlled conditions? A bar fight isn't about controlled conditions, and it isn't about finding the best fighter OR best fighting style, period.

Since you ignored my point, here it is again. **Bar/Streetfighting tends to be about who is willing to engage in the most criminal behavior with the least moral scruples** that person tends to win. Ali, Royce, O' Sensei, Kano, whoever..It doesnt matter, they have as much chance in a bar fight as you or I. Less chance than the bar tender hiding the shotgun behind the jack Daneils case.

In this kind of situation the best fighting style is GUN FU (get it) or Knife Fu (double ha) this is why you can't really measure what works best in a bar fight. get it? Put an Aikido guy against a trained fighter of almost any other art, you get a flattened Aikido guy. I find that to be a better method of measuring combat effectivness.

PS: If we're talking about Aikido (as you implied with your last post) why do you keep mentioning BJJ (and in turn, flip out when I mention MMA)? I just dont get it.

PPS: even the best fighter in the world can lose a bar fight. Obviously Boxers, MMA fighters can and have lost them before. But as stated, this has nothing to do with the ability to rationally judge the effectiveness of a fighting art.

I don't totally disagree, though I strongly disagree that a guy that can stick and move like Ali (unless you're refrring to the current, Alzheimerss-ridden Ali) or can take a guy down and choke him out like Royce would fare no better than myself or you.

I also said that if we were discussing the best art for MMA, than it was "an open and shut case." What I mean was (which I thought was reasonably clear) that we know which styles prevail there: boxing, grappling arts (wrestling/BJJ) and Muay Thai.

So then, let me for the sake of argument just go ahead an concede that success in MMA is the first and last word in demonstrating the relative effectives of Style A to Style B, Style C, Style Q, and so on. Fine. I will even concede that Aikido is not the greatest thing in the world against another well-trained fighter since my observations bear this out. Great.

Now let me point out the bleedin' obvious: **STREETFIGHTS AIN'T MMA** Hence, dismissing the effectiveness of a fighting style because it's not UFC tested and approved is silly, dismissing its' effectiveness when its' worked in fights sillier. How you can reconcile the notions that MMA is the lab to test "combat effectiveness" with "actual combat means nothing" is beyond me.

Aikido would not be my first choice of arts to train in. This doesn't mean the claims that its' useless aren't unsound, or the constant blather about it being a philosophy class with funny pajamas isn't misinformed, inaccurate, and stupid.

 

[Jitsuman]

You were, I thought, pointing to a good brawler and not-so-great MMA fighter (Tank) to show streetfighting and MMA were different, and skill at one doesn't transfer necessarily to the other. I was wrong?


I don't totally disagree, though I strongly disagree that a guy that can stick and move like Ali (unless you're refrring to the current, Alzheimerss-ridden Ali) or can take a guy down and choke him out like Royce would fare no better than myself or you.

So then, let me for the sake of argument just go ahead an concede that success in MMA is the first and last word in demonstrating the relative effectives of Style A to Style B, Style C, Style Q, and so on. Fine. I will even concede that Aikido is not the greatest thing in the world against another well-trained fighter since my observations bear this out. Great.

Now let me point out the bleedin' obvious: **STREETFIGHTS AIN'T MMA** Hence, dismissing the effectiveness of a fighting style because it's not UFC tested and approved is silly, dismissing its' effectiveness when its' worked in fights sillier. How you can reconcile the notions that MMA is the lab to test "combat effectiveness" with "actual combat means nothing" is beyond me.

Aikido would not be my first choice of arts to train in. This doesn't mean the claims that its' useless aren't unsound, or the constant blather about it being a philosophy class with funny pajamas isn't misinformed, inaccurate, and stupid.

1. I mentioned Tank to show that a confessed "professional bar fighter" Who is said to win a lot of bar fights, is NOT a particularly skilled technical fighter with a superior fighting style. Tank wins bar fights because he's big, has a head made of concrete, and enjoys seriously hurting people (criminality). His MMA status was not what I was getting at, no. My point was that what works in bar fights has little to do with finding superior fighting arts, as we all know that Tank isn't exactly the most 'skilled' of martial artists.

2. I dont thiink MMA is the be all end all of comparing martial arts, but I do find it to be the best we have right now, at doing so in a controlled, evidence friendly atomosphere. Weight classes, referee's, and time limits are GOOD for comparing arts, otherwise we could get a 120 pound Aikidoka with a bum leg Vs. a 300 pound champion college wrestler in a so called "street-fight". I think you can say that this would most certainly not be a fair/reasonable way of finding the effectivness of Aikido. This is what I'm getting at when I talk about a controlled/neutral environment for testing fighting ability.

3. I meant that royce and ali would fare the same against the bartender with a shotgun, as you or I. Just to clear that up. Surely they'd fare better one on one with the patrons.