FightingArts Estore
Pressure Points
From a medical professional, straight facts on where and how to hit that can save your life.
Stretching
Limber or not, anyone can add height and speed to their kicks with this method.
Calligraphy
For yourself or as a gift, calligraphy is special, unique and lasting.
Karate Uniforms
Look your best. Max snap. low cost & superior crafted: “Peak Performance Gold” 16 oz uniforms.

MOTOBU
Classic book translation. Hard to find. Not in stores.
Who's Online
0 registered (), 58 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
old1, Leonar, ManLar, Vimido, raya
22925 Registered Users
Top Posters (30 Days)
futsaowingchun 4
Ronin1966 3
GojuRyuboy13 2
AndyLA 1
cxt 1
October
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
New Topics
The Classic Pak Sao drill
by futsaowingchun
10/20/14 10:32 AM
wing chun kicks and knees
by futsaowingchun
10/09/14 12:55 AM
2014 European Championships Juniors: the Gallery
by ergees
10/05/14 10:56 AM
Tan,Bong,Fuk & Wu Sao
by futsaowingchun
09/30/14 12:10 AM
Living a full life violence free...
by GojuRyuboy13
09/25/14 08:50 AM
Wing Chun-internal training
by futsaowingchun
09/23/14 09:01 PM
An open letter to bunkai researchers...
by Bartfast
08/05/14 04:18 PM
The Karate punch
by Matakiant
10/30/13 07:41 AM
Leo's Judo Journal
by Leo_E_49
01/24/12 02:58 AM
** Introduce Yourself! **
by
05/13/07 08:02 AM
Recent Posts
Living a full life violence free...
by GojuRyuboy13
Yesterday at 07:20 AM
The Classic Pak Sao drill
by futsaowingchun
10/20/14 10:32 AM
Leo's Judo Journal
by swordy
10/11/14 09:21 AM
The Karate punch
by Ronin1966
10/09/14 03:16 PM
wing chun kicks and knees
by futsaowingchun
10/09/14 12:55 AM
An open letter to bunkai researchers...
by Ronin1966
10/08/14 09:22 PM
2014 European Championships Juniors: the Gallery
by ergees
10/05/14 10:56 AM
** Introduce Yourself! **
by AndyLA
10/04/14 10:20 AM
Tan,Bong,Fuk & Wu Sao
by futsaowingchun
09/30/14 12:10 AM
Wing Chun-internal training
by futsaowingchun
09/23/14 09:01 PM
Forum Stats
22925 Members
36 Forums
35582 Topics
432510 Posts

Max Online: 424 @ 09/24/13 10:38 PM
Page 1 of 17 1 2 3 ... 16 17 >
Topic Options
#407444 - 09/14/08 06:07 AM Hmm... Okay....
Taison Offline
The Forum Dragon
Professional Poster

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 3629
Loc: BKK, Thailand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_biWkxuYOY

Okay....

I dare anyone to sit on their knees like that and receive one of my roundhouses.

I doubt there's going to be anyone who'll be able to stand up without going "ouch! You (censored) twit, kick softer!"

Not really impressed by their co-operativeness. But then again, it's just training and the whole 'flow with each other' mindset that p!sses me off again. The dudes doesn't even pretend to kick before he gets thrown, and the thrower is a psychic all of a sudden.

oh wells...

Note; I'm not bashing Aikido, just the training method used by these numbskulls in the video.

~Donnie
_________________________
I got two fists.. Don't make me use my head as well!

Top
#407445 - 09/14/08 11:30 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Taison]
grumbleweed Offline
Member

Registered: 08/12/06
Posts: 446
_________________________
"Irony is mainly used by the British in in order to distinguish themselves from Americans, which worked very well until the Americans had more guns than them."

Top
#407446 - 09/14/08 11:42 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: grumbleweed]
MattJ Offline
Free Rhinoplasty!
Prolific

Registered: 11/25/04
Posts: 15634
Loc: York PA. USA
Agreed, Taison. Although I liked the angles they were working.
_________________________
"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Top
#407447 - 09/14/08 07:48 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Taison]
eyrie Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 12/28/04
Posts: 3106
Loc: QLD, Australia
3 general comments... actually more observations than comments...

1. Some aikidoka really do need to learn how to strike and kick. If anything, at least it gives your training partner something a bit more realistic to work with. Most aikidoka talk about giving "honest" and "sincere" attacks. To me, that's neither. Honest and sincere means "f*ing HIT me Biatch!"...

2. Whilst I understand the need for training safety and wotnot... learning to do a proper breakfall is indispensable in any MA, as is learning how to do a proper takedown from a kick.

3. Some people really shouldn't put stuff on YouTube... it's a terrible waste of bandwidth.

Top
#407448 - 09/15/08 12:15 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: eyrie]
shoshinkan Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 05/10/05
Posts: 2662
Loc: UK
hey eyrie ,

can you link us to some aikido who 'demonstrate' how to kick and punch with some intent against the partner ?

that would be good to see,
_________________________
Jim Neeter

www.shoshinkanuk.blogspot.com

Top
#407449 - 09/15/08 01:45 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: shoshinkan]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
shoshinkan,

I think you are missing an important point: you don't see aikidoka going at it with "intent" because that is not part of their paradigm. You see, aikido is so sophisticated it operates in a different modality than other martial arts. Most martial arts operate in a modality called THE REAL WORLD. Aikido is far too elevated and spiritual to go there!

Top
#407450 - 09/15/08 02:56 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
Taison Offline
The Forum Dragon
Professional Poster

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 3629
Loc: BKK, Thailand
Fileboy,

Back off a bit.

I allow argumen.. debates between members.
I don't allow art bashing in these forums though.

First Yellow card. 2 yellows, you get a red.

You may now continue on.

~Donnie
_________________________
I got two fists.. Don't make me use my head as well!

Top
#407451 - 09/15/08 04:28 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Taison]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
Okay, I'll try to rephrase it:

Shoshinkan,

You are unlikely to find video of aikidoka actively resisting each other because active resistence is not a method aikido often uses. They prefer a collaborative approach where uke and nage act together to work through the proper execution of techniques.

Decide for yourself whether such an approach would develop practical self-defense skills.

Top
#407452 - 09/15/08 04:43 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: shoshinkan]
Prizewriter Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 10/23/05
Posts: 2573
Well, here is another Aikido Demo. The first minute or so has some stuff against kicks. I am by no means an expert in kicking, but it has a bit more intent and, IMHO, form with regards to kicks than those in the clip Taison posted. Again though, its only a demo, ableit a slightly more sharper one IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srzutokpJyo
_________________________
"Let your food be your medicine, and your medicine be your food" Hippocrates.

Top
#407453 - 09/15/08 04:59 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: shoshinkan]
Prizewriter Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 10/23/05
Posts: 2573
Some more clips:

Kick defence at the start of this one is pretty sharp:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXMoFgH6UYc

Here is a quality clip, really good movement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_1HgO-BhFk

Again, these are only demos, they are not "ultimate self defense" clips, which as we all know, is the only reason to do anything, GRRRRRRR!!!!
_________________________
"Let your food be your medicine, and your medicine be your food" Hippocrates.

Top
#407454 - 09/15/08 05:02 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
tomh777 Offline
Member

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 114
Loc: Metro Detroit
Quote:

They prefer a collaborative approach where uke and nage act together to work through the proper execution of techniques. Decide for yourself whether such an approach would develop practical self-defense skills.




While the kicks in the original video may have been poorly executed, unrealistic, etc, one thing that a drill like that can help develop is timing...and actually timing can be pretty important in the context of self defense. Would it be nice if there was aikido that had all out knock down drag out bashing in it?...sure...but to write aikido off as completely unrealistic I think is too extreme a perspective. Boxers have punching drills,etc. Judoka have throwing drills such as uchikomi, and stegeiko(sp?), etc. These drills are not useless. They are preparation for the "real thing."

Peace

Top
#407455 - 09/15/08 07:16 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: tomh777]
eyrie Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 12/28/04
Posts: 3106
Loc: QLD, Australia
Jim,

Quite frankly I haven't come across any aikido video demonstrating any sort of effective response against kicks, much less with any sort of effective kicking in it.

While I do appreciate some of these are demos, and ukes tend to "wait" for the finishing technique, IMO, they are generally poorly done. Particularly, the Tissier video, where uke is not really looking to land the kick, and then proceeds to "wait" for Tissier (whose timing is WAY off in some instances) for the throw.

I used to do TKD & karate (we also trained kicks and kick defenses in jujitsu), and honestly, none of the kicks in Prizewriter's video examples would have any sort of real impact. But I'm sure most of you with any sort of striking background can quite easily discern that.

I also appreciate the value of some of these examples as spatial and timing drills - no problem with that. But I stand by my initial assessment.

FWIW, any Aikido demo involving some sort of "response"/"defense" to kicks are largely contrived examples to demonstrate spatial and timing assessment skills for the initial entry/turning out of the path of the kick, and nothing more. Both uke and nage know what kick is coming and what the "response" will be.

IMO, the only thing one should be working on in any sort of kick defense is the entry and timing - moving into the opponent's space where the opponent has no power, and looking to off-balance immediately. And if you're working with the opponent's centerline and balance, you don't need any "technique" for that. Anything that "looks" like a "real" technique is purely incidental, and if it happens, it's merely icing on the cake.

Top
#407456 - 09/16/08 07:17 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: eyrie]
Prizewriter Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 10/23/05
Posts: 2573
Eyrie,

As you have more MA experience, I have a question: Do you think that, in general, there is a weakness in pre-emptive training vs. kicks in traditional martial arts, or do you think that Aikido, an art that by and large doesn't practice kicking, suffers more when training against kicks as kicks aren't part of the training (genralizing here).

For instance, here is a Wado Ryu karate clip where the kihon being practiced involves uke kicking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ9TuyEDWjQ

Do you think that Karate pre-emptive drills are "better" at defending against this sort of thing as kicking is a regular part of karate, whereas in Aikido it isn't? Or do you think that their isn't much benefit in any sort of pre-emptive drills when it comes to kicking?

Again, I would say I have very limited kicking experience, so you have to excuse my ignorance!

Although addressed to Eyrie, anyone else chip in on this as well if you like.
_________________________
"Let your food be your medicine, and your medicine be your food" Hippocrates.

Top
#407457 - 09/16/08 08:01 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Prizewriter]
eyrie Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 12/28/04
Posts: 3106
Loc: QLD, Australia
First off Prize. I don't have more MA experience. I just think about it a lot.

Quote:

Do you think that, in general, there is a weakness in pre-emptive training vs. kicks in traditional martial arts, or do you think that Aikido, an art that by and large doesn't practice kicking, suffers more when training against kicks as kicks aren't part of the training (genralizing here).


I don't understand what you mean by "pre-emptive training". Can you please clarify? I'm not certain what other Aikido schools teach/don't teach. I can only make limited comments based on limited observations of something. Some aikido schools do teach kicks, some better than others. Some don't.

Quote:

Do you think that Karate pre-emptive drills are "better" at defending against this sort of thing as kicking is a regular part of karate, whereas in Aikido it isn't? Or do you think that their isn't much benefit in any sort of pre-emptive drills when it comes to kicking?


Against I'm not sure what you mean by "pre-emptive drill". I see things like this example of kihon kumite (which IMO is basic 1-2-3 step "sparring", as the name suggests), as an exercise to teach ma-ai, taisabaki and timing + some sort of response/technique. I'm not sure what style of Aikido you do, but it would be similar to what most Aikidoka know as kihon waza - which is essentially drilling the same principles, albeit in a different format.

Kicking is more or less similar to hand striking. Mae/yoko geri is like jodan/gedan tsuki. Mawashi geri is like yokomen uchi. The only difference is it's a leg you're dealing with, as well as a different ma-ai.

In any case, it's a means to connect to their center... It's also much easier to obtain kuzushi if they're standing on one leg. The entry is trickier, and timing is paramount. I'd just work on getting to their centerline and into their space. The rest is relatively easy.

Top
#407458 - 09/16/08 08:16 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: eyrie]
Prizewriter Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 10/23/05
Posts: 2573
Sorry my bad. By pre-determined is really what I meant, as in Tori knows whats coming.

I am aware that in aikido there are similar training drills to that of arts like karate. What I meant to ask was that, in your experience/opinion, are the pre-determined drills in karate (just taking karate as an example) any better at defending vs kicks than those in Aikido? If there is a difference, is that down to the fact that Karate-ka train to kick as part of karate, as oppose to Aikido where they don't (once again, generalizing here)? In other words, how much does the ability to deliver a good kick count in a pre-determined drill count in the effectiveness of that drill?
_________________________
"Let your food be your medicine, and your medicine be your food" Hippocrates.

Top
#407459 - 09/16/08 08:35 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Prizewriter]
eyrie Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 12/28/04
Posts: 3106
Loc: QLD, Australia
Quote:

Sorry my bad. By pre-determined is really what I meant, as in Tori knows whats coming.

I am aware that in aikido there are similar training drills to that of arts like karate. What I meant to ask was that, in your experience/opinion, are the pre-determined drills in karate (just taking karate as an example) any better at defending vs kicks than those in Aikido? If there is a difference, is that down to the fact that Karate-ka train to kick as part of karate, as oppose to Aikido where they don't (once again, generalizing here)? In other words, how much does the ability to deliver a good kick count in a pre-determined drill count in the effectiveness of that drill?


IMO, it's useful as a learning tool initially. Learning to kick properly is necessary. Learning how to deliver momentum thru a kick is indispensable. Learning to control/pull your kick at the last minute in case tori doesn't move, is also important. Learning how to deal with the angle, trajectory and potential impact force of a kick is important. So, from an initial learning perspective, contrived drills such as these are important. Just like contrived kihon waza are important.

Eventually, though you'd want to discard the form of the drill and just "move"/respond. That's when I hope you were learning to read your uke, when you were practicing those drills.

Top
#407460 - 09/16/08 01:47 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Prizewriter]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
Self-defense may not be the only reason to do anything, but it is a major reason people decide to study martial arts. For people intersted in self-defense, a martial art that never tests its techniques under realistic conditions is suspect. Sorry, but that is just common sense skepticism.

Top
#407461 - 09/16/08 02:26 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
Prizewriter Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 10/23/05
Posts: 2573
I agree with that. But there are very few martial arts/schools that train under realistic conditions IMHO. Unless it's some sort of MMA that also includes weapons work, to my mind it isn't going to be realistic (or close to reality as you can get) or it will be lacking in a certain area.

Is most Aikido training based in realism from a SD perspective? Yes and no. It won't work all the time, but it won't NOT work all the time either if you see what I am saying!
_________________________
"Let your food be your medicine, and your medicine be your food" Hippocrates.

Top
#407462 - 09/16/08 07:06 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
eyrie Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 12/28/04
Posts: 3106
Loc: QLD, Australia
Quote:

Self-defense may not be the only reason to do anything, but it is a major reason people decide to study martial arts. For people intersted in self-defense, a martial art that never tests its techniques under realistic conditions is suspect. Sorry, but that is just common sense skepticism.




Define "realistic conditions"? Someone really trying to smack the cr@p out of you? Multiple-attackers king-hitting you and then proceeding to kick your head in as you're lying on the ground in a pool of your own blood? Someone trying to stick you with a real knife? Someone pulling a gun on you and attempting to rape you?

All of this, while in a "training" environment? Puhlese...

All training scenarios are contrived to some extent... even ones that claim to teach "self-defense". Is someone wearing a red-suit "realistic"? Does the man in the red-suit respond/react in the same way that a "real" assailant would? Or is the red-man an artifact, designed to allow the participant to safely (for the red-man) "go all out"? Is that a "realistic condition"?

Top
#407463 - 09/17/08 12:42 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
tomh777 Offline
Member

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 114
Loc: Metro Detroit
Quote:

For people intersted in self-defense, a martial art that never tests its techniques under realistic conditions is suspect. Sorry, but that is just common sense skepticism.




I agree. However, even your judo falls short of that standard. In randori you are not allowed to kick, punch, bite, gouge, or use guns or knives. Consequently, even though randori is essentially full contact it still falls short as a traning ground for "realistic" self defense. In judo the only time kicks, punches, knives, and guns are defended against is in the goshin jitsu no kata. And going by your standards of "realistic" self defense the goshin jitsu no kata is nothing more than a series of pre-arranged attacks done by a compliant uke. My point is not to dis judo (I'm still convinced it's the coolest sport in the world). It just seems odd to continue to bash aikido rather than recognizing and embracing the common principles that judo and aikido share.

Peace

Top
#407464 - 09/17/08 01:41 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: tomh777]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
It is quite clear to me that in the original video many of the defences (at least the standing ones) are quite sound - move in early and intercept the attack, then drop the opponent.

I have no doubt many of the techniques shown could be practised realistically and then applied in a "real world" environment. They might require some adjustment in terms of attack interception etc. - but the principles are sound.

Presumably what fileboy etc. find objectionable is the training method of aikido. Taison said it well - the video shows too much compliance for realistic training. However the art of aikido is based on solid principles related to other forms of jujutsu and this must be distinguished from the "intensity" issue.
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407465 - 09/17/08 02:28 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
Here's some aikido done a bit more realistically.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aJv48aVUko

I have no doubt the techniques are capable of being used in reality - maybe not as cleanly as demonstrated, but more or less (at least the majority). I've seen many of the techniques applied (usually in a more limited way) in ring fights (including the kick defences at the end).

That aikido is hard to apply is true. The reason is 2 fold:

First you need to learn fairly refined movement. To learn movements of this refinement requires many years of "non-live" isolation practise. After all, you can't learn a good golf swing unless you do it without pressure. And a golf swing has nothing on an aikido throw, believe me.

To use a better analogy, you couldn't expect to learn a proper baseline or net shot in tennis if you never spent time isolating the movement. If you just go straight into playing full tennis games because "you don't have time for isolated practise - you're too busy returning balls" you'll be wiped off by even a slightly coached player.

Second, once you've learned the technique you need to introduce it gradually into a live environment. While most aikidoka don't do this, it doesn't invalidate the technique, nor make it impossible. Free fighting has many more variables than a game of tennis, which means it is harder environment to apply technique of any kind. Refined technique can be applied in a free fighting environment provided you actually go to the trouble of training to do so.

The fact is that most people who have the inclination and patience to learn aikido aren't minded to train in more live enviroment. It is a matter of natural selection. Are people like fileboy ever going to start aikido? Are people who do aikido the types who might have joined and stayed in a gym like fileboy's?

Criticise the lack of intensity all you like - you're quite right. But as for the art - aikido is a highly skilled discipline with a similar technical base to BJJ or judo - trashing it or its experienced exponents by simplistically focussing on the training method and ignoring the technique shows some other "issues" imo. It is also deeply insulting of the many years of sweat and dedication aikidoka put into the mat.
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407466 - 09/17/08 02:49 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
eyrie Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 12/28/04
Posts: 3106
Loc: QLD, Australia
Dan... you need to appreciate the background context in which fileboy is posting... ever visited Bullshido.net?

Top
#407467 - 09/17/08 03:44 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: eyrie]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
Unfortunately, I have.
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407468 - 09/17/08 05:22 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
BrianS Offline
Higher rank than you
Professional Poster

Registered: 11/04/05
Posts: 5959
Loc: Northwest Arkansas

Quote:

Self-defense may not be the only reason to do anything, but it is a major reason people decide to study martial arts. For people intersted in self-defense, a martial art that never tests its techniques under realistic conditions is suspect. Sorry, but that is just common sense skepticism.







You could pick just about any art and pick it apart based on it's self defense effectiveness or training methods.

If your mindset is solely self defense then go all the way. Whatever weapons are availiable and legal to carry. In my state I could I could be fully armed to the teeth,legally, how you gonna train for that?

You have to leave out the art to be fully effective imo. Aikido or whatever.


Edited by BrianS (09/17/08 05:23 AM)
_________________________
The2nd ammendment, it makes all the others possible. <///<




Top
#407469 - 09/17/08 04:35 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: BrianS]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
I agree 100% that just about any art can be faulted for lack of realism in some aspect and to some extent. However, that does not mean all arts are equally deficient in this respect. Some arts are more practical than others.

Top
#407470 - 09/18/08 12:29 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
butterfly Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 3012
Loc: Torrance, CA
"Practical," I think, really has to be considered from the student’s POV and reasons for study. And those are for him or her to decide. Putting aliveness and resistance to the side for the moment, and just looking at education in general, some folk access instruction differently and will grow and learn better with a differently formatted curriculum. I have also known one person who just couldn’t punch someone in the face, doubtful that boxing would be a good source of instruction for him, but perhaps wrestling would be a better choice. Also, some people like the aesthetics and cultural backdrop of a particular Asian MA and this can help them to learn.

Basically, what I am trying to get across is that certain arts may indeed offer up “tests” and “situations” that offer a higher dose of reality in their training, but it does no good for the person who either doesn’t want it, or who turns away from that instruction because it just doesn’t speak to him on a personal level. Practicality, then, has to be assigned as much by the student as any consideration of just curriculum.

Top
#407471 - 09/18/08 04:38 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: butterfly]
Prizewriter Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 10/23/05
Posts: 2573
Excellent point Butterfly! I made a post about educational psychologist David Kleb a while ago. He basically said that individuals have certain preferences for learninig. Some people learn in an "hands on" kind of way, whereas some folks learn by using more abstract ideas and relating to the material in different ways.

I like your point about considering what is "practical" in a more holistic sense.

Another factor I have come to regard in my own training is the health risks in certain training. I made another post about how likely it was to get injured doing high contact martial arts. Basically, most folks seem to think, and this has been my experience, that participation in high contact martial arts isn't always a good idea for long term health.

Many arts that don't use the same methods e.g. 100% resistance, full contact sparring etc... are, at least in my experience, a lot less likely to get you injured.

Case in point: My local Shodokan Aikido Association website proudly reports that they have never had a serious injury in reported in any of their classes in their 30 odd year history.

Compare this to the BJJ class I went to where I got injured to the point of having to take time off work, a guy had his arm broken in class, and another guy damaged his knee and couldn't train for several months.

For myself, likelihood of injury is a factor I also consider when it comes to being "practical" about Martial arts!

Sorry if this is a little of topic BTW!
_________________________
"Let your food be your medicine, and your medicine be your food" Hippocrates.

Top
#407472 - 09/18/08 07:04 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Prizewriter]
BrianS Offline
Higher rank than you
Professional Poster

Registered: 11/04/05
Posts: 5959
Loc: Northwest Arkansas
Tell me about it!
_________________________
The2nd ammendment, it makes all the others possible. <///<




Top
#407473 - 09/18/08 11:33 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: butterfly]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
By "practical" I meant applicable to a real-life self-defense situation. If someone has some other criteria they want to hang the label "practical" on, that is fine. Though I must say, you make it sound like the word "practical" could mean almost anything, depending on the individual who uses the term. I think using words that broadly muddies rather clarfies things.

Top
#407474 - 09/19/08 12:50 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
eyrie Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 12/28/04
Posts: 3106
Loc: QLD, Australia
Quote:

By "practical" I meant applicable to a real-life self-defense situation. If someone has some other criteria they want to hang the label "practical" on, that is fine. Though I must say, you make it sound like the word "practical" could mean almost anything, depending on the individual who uses the term. I think using words that broadly muddies rather clarfies things.


That's what Brad's saying... "practical" for what purpose, what goal? Yet, isn't it ironic that you seem to be saying it's fair to use "practical" in a broad sense to imply "real-life self-defense" only?

Top
#407475 - 09/19/08 03:11 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: eyrie]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
Actually, I was using "practical" in a narrow sense, to mean applicablity in self-defense situations. Brad pointed out a person might have goals besides self-defense, and that martial arts training might be a "practical" means of pursuing those goals as well. To a point, I agree. However, I think using a word like "practical" in an some individualistic, idiosyncratic way makes communication difficult. The person you are talking to is unlikely to know what your personal definition is, and you end up talking past each other.

A good example: Journalist Chris Hedges, a man whose work I greatly respect, identifies himself as a Christian. However, he has called the notion of an anthropomorphic God "silly," insists God is a man-made concept, and that the word "God" should be understood "as a verb rather than a noun."

Clearly, Hedges' definition of Christianity is quite different from that held by the vast majority of Christians. In reality, Hedges in a non-believer who uses the word "God" as a metaphor for a kind of humanistic metaphysics. Fair enough. But if I didn't know that, and we tried to have a discussion about theology, we might have a very hard time understanding each other, at least at first.

Hope that makes things clearer.

Top
#407476 - 09/19/08 04:41 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
eyrie Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 12/28/04
Posts: 3106
Loc: QLD, Australia
Yes. Thanks for clarifying.

Quote:

You are unlikely to find video of aikidoka actively resisting each other because active resistence is not a method aikido often uses. They prefer a collaborative approach where uke and nage act together to work through the proper execution of techniques.

Decide for yourself whether such an approach would develop practical self-defense skills.


Would you like to clarify this statement as well? Because I think the statement is a limited perception of one particular aspect of aikido training in general. Another important aspect of aikido training, which you may or may not be aware of, involves randori/jiyu-waza which is not unlike judo randori, in which there are varying levels of "active resistance" - depending on participant skill and abilities.

That some aikido schools choose not to emphasize the goshin-jitsu or self-defense aspects of the art, is also not unlike some judo schools, where the goshin-jitsu and goshin-jitsu-no-kata have been de-emphasized in favor of a more sports-oriented syllabus.

How do you reconcile that? Should all judo be described as sport-oriented approaches, as you have described aikido as lacking a practical self-defence focus?

Top
#407477 - 09/19/08 04:57 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
I agree with your definition of "practical" in ordinary martial parlance fileboy.

However I feel that your use is short hand for a number of things which need to be separated:

1. practical training method
2. practical techniques

Most aikidoka for example don't have a practical training method - but does it mean that the techniques are necessarily impractical?

I note that "practical techniques" is also short hand for a number of different things: Reading between the lines I get the feeling you are referring to techniques that are:

1. capable of being used in combat; and
2. easily learned; and
3. in themselves sufficient.

Grappling meets the first 2 requirements - but not the third (you need good stand-up skill for self-defence). Is grappling impractical? I doubt you would think so. [And going back to the definition of "practical" ventured earlier - clearly not impractical for BJJ/wrestling/judo competiton.]

So if I choose to augment my skills in a sideline (eg. trapping skills from Wing Chun) am I being impractical because I feel that Wing Chun skills are not, in themselves, sufficient (as many do because of mobility etc.)?

And supposing we had techniques that were hard learn, yet once learned were very good in combat? Would this preclude you from developing those skills - perhaps in tandem with your other skills? Or would you feel it is best to rely on a much smaller subset of skills that is immediately practical to some extent, and forget about other "hard to learn skills"?

If so, what sense does this make for a person who has been training for as long as you have? Why wouldn't you expand your range? Is time really that much of a factor to you now? Are you still able to punch and kick as fast and as hard as when you were young? Are you still refining your right cross by tiny increments hoping to maintain a small edge over the big new bruiser in the gym who can naturally hit twice as hard as you can?

I know of footballers who have "cross-trained" in ballet hoping to get some small unexpected edge. I get the feeling that you wouldn't ever consider something as obtuse as that. But might you look into a traditional skill set?

Is the fact that most traditional martial artists are not inclined to practise in a live environment really enough for you to consign all traditional arts to the "impractical" bin?

Bear in mind - if you want to learn the fine points of an advanced tma skill (eg. aikido/wing chun/taiji/karate) takes a lot of "impractical" isolation training just like a golf swing or tennis serve... You can't just grab them out and say "I like your front kick". What you end up with is the "teep"... not the same thing and not nearly as good as good imo (I don't know many non-traditional ma who can do anything like a good front kick - most are not even aware that they are lacking what I consider to be a basic skill).


Edited by dandjurdjevic (09/19/08 05:20 AM)
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407478 - 09/19/08 05:03 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
BrianS Offline
Higher rank than you
Professional Poster

Registered: 11/04/05
Posts: 5959
Loc: Northwest Arkansas
The whole "practical" or not argument is impractical.
_________________________
The2nd ammendment, it makes all the others possible. <///<




Top
#407479 - 09/19/08 12:24 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
butterfly Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 3012
Loc: Torrance, CA
FB, I understand your points and probably agree with your standards for MA education more than not, but still, I think "Practical" has to be thought of in broad terms for several reasons. And most of these fall under situational awareness and stepping aside from possible encounters that might promote violence, not necessarily the specifics of how one trains, but the mind set they engender.

For the most part, my feelings are that Martial Arts are over rated for use. I have known two people close to me mugged (my brother being one of them, the other a former high school buddy that I still keep in contact with and have known for over 30 years). I have also known two people stabbed in fights and have had a former co-worker’s friend shot and killed by gangsters who had the wrong address seeking to do some reprisal damage. I also know one of my other buddies, who is a purple belt in BJJ and a good fighter, who had to run from a group of testosterone fueled youths provoked by one of his friends.

The muggings: multiple assailants with at least six guys for each of the two muggings that the muggee personally told me about. The stabbings: one was one-on-one with a group behind the stabber so the stabbee ran for it after being stabbed; and the other was another of my ‘friends’ who got into a fight, took mount and the downed guy’s buddy stabbed him in the back---emergency room and near death being the result of that incident. The shooting: took place in Gardena about 14 years ago when the victim opened his door when it was knocked on and got blown away. One of my boss’ friends was killed by gangsters too when he confronted a group stealing his car stereo.

For these “real” situations, I don’t care what one professes to know or how adept he is, multiple attackers and weapons are not something that any amount of bare-handed MAs practice can hope to address on a purely physical level. This is my pool of personal-anecdotal information that I dip into when looking at what a “real” fight means. If that is the case, just being much more careful about one’s surroundings, listening to that subconscious voice saying, “things seem not to be right here,” and not being one to allow his temper to rule his mind will get you more boon for your buck than just about any MA practice you’d care to open your wallet to.

In that case, the traditional “aspects” of Martial Arts (not necessarily TMAs—since one of the most even tempered guys I have met was a cage fighter) of attempting to be a better person and not getting riled by the inconsequentials of life seem to be more in line with staying away from situations that can offer up real violence as consequences of bad choices. But to be sure, if someone does happen to side-swipe you out of the blue while walking down the street, then having some fully “resistive” practice will help you out. Just that by all the violent encounters that I have been told about, the attackee was either blind-sided and set up for such, or entered into a situation where he really didn’t have as much control as he thought he did as he bowed to his anger.

So, if you’re into Kendo and you like it, despite not having to face someone attacking you with a broom stick on the street while you had your own broom stick, you are probably reaping 80% of what a martial can do for you in simple awareness and keeping your anger in check, even if you are not fending off someone who has you in a guillotine choke on a regular basis in class.

For us regular Joes not in the military or the police who train expressed utility in specific applications of martial arts, MA choices are personal ones that take with them personal baggage for appreciation. A person who, for whatever reason, does not like to punch will not benefit from the most gifted of boxing teachers. So is it practical for him to practice this, when perhaps learning ipon seoi nage from Judo might be a more pragmatic choice?

In the end, at least for me, Practical gives way to Personal Pragmatism in the choices one makes and the reasons one makes them. Training bare bones utility is a different question, but I still see it framed by personal choices to make your art work for you, even if it doesn’t quite fit all the specific requirements that reality may ask of it.

Top
#407480 - 09/19/08 12:36 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: butterfly]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
I agree 100% butterfly.

Top
#407481 - 09/19/08 01:24 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
MattJ Offline
Free Rhinoplasty!
Prolific

Registered: 11/25/04
Posts: 15634
Loc: York PA. USA
I hate to say this, but I'm not sure that I agree with Butterfly on this. People can attribute all sorts of secondary benefits to any activity, but (IMHO) that doesn't change the intrinsic nature of it. While self defense can accrue points like health, confidence, etc., those are not the primary purposes of learning a combat art. I could learn to be aware and personable without ever stepping foot in a MA studio - but you need to fight to learn how to fight.

To put it another way, would it be practical to keep firearms for collector purposes, without ever learning to shoot under combat conditions?

And I have no problem with teachers that teach martial arts in a non-practical way, if they are honest about it. Ditto for students that wish to learn MA's minus the realistic contact and such.

Just food for thought.
_________________________
"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Top
#407482 - 09/19/08 02:45 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: MattJ]
butterfly Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 3012
Loc: Torrance, CA
Matt,

Not a problem here. Good discussion has disagreements in it---occasionally. LOL And I agree that to learn to fight, you have to fight and therein lies a process of training that will help you do this, if that is what you want. What I do not agree with is the ascription to any particular training that it will help all who come to it the same way and encourage the same benefits in everyone. Goes back to any instruction: same instructor in a college class, same presentation and someone gets an A and someone gets an F. Can’t fault the instruction in that case, can fault the student who may need a different type of teaching method to get the stuff set in his head if it isn’t just laziness.

The goal of education is to be usable, and that’s what martial arts are: education; and to expect all to take advantage of one type of instruction in the same way might be hoping for too much. That’s the personal choice that I am talking about, particularly if one is just looking to be safe and enjoy his or her practice. In that case, being aware, being even tempered and having good running shoes offer up better investments than any martial arts practice for encounters of the unwholesome kind that relate to being targeted for violence. So if your practice can instill some of these, the better for you, regardless of how alive or realistic the training.

Further, if the goal of self-defense is to preempt situations that may lead ultimately to violence or to try to de-escalate them prior to their offing, then the physicality of martial arts as a whole is less a part of this equation. This, then, leads to personal choices and things that cater to your requirements of practice as longs as this general idea of safety is something that is held to and encouraged, especially if you think of SD in these terms of targeted violence or allowing yourself to be exposed to it.

The flip side of your gun collector would be an angry 25 year old, former boxer and high school wrestling champion who gets into MMAs for all the wrong reasons. Good at what he does until he allows his anger to get the better of him when he confronts one guy who leads him to five others who have guns and aluminum bats.

Sure, if you get into an unfortunate altercation, fighting and realistic training will benefit you. My contention is that these are necessarily the less stressed points to a violent encounter unless that confrontation has already begun. In that case, questions of “seeing” what can lead to it and stopping it before it arrives are more “practical.”

Top
#407483 - 09/19/08 03:15 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: butterfly]
MattJ Offline
Free Rhinoplasty!
Prolific

Registered: 11/25/04
Posts: 15634
Loc: York PA. USA
Quote:

In that case, questions of “seeing” what can lead to it and stopping it before it arrives are more “practical.”




Not disagreeing with you there, although maybe your angry MMA guy JUST DIDN'T TRAIN HARD ENUFF.

I guess there is no way to meaningfully seperate 'the education' from 'the student'. They don't operate independant of one another. Even though they should - it's really hampering my arguments here.
_________________________
"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Top
#407484 - 09/19/08 05:26 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: MattJ]
eyrie Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 12/28/04
Posts: 3106
Loc: QLD, Australia
Well, how much of your college or university education emcompasses everything you need to know to do your job? Why is there is need for on-going OJT and further training and education? Because, college and uni are simply "preparatory" - to give you enough of a base level education to enter into the workforce and compete.

I see no difference with MA. Not all MA are combat/self-defence oriented. It has been said, by various sources in the SD industry, that 90-99% of self-defense is awareness and avoidance. That leaves only 1-10% actual "technique". Yet, in every MA, 90% of the focus is on that 1-10%.

The same argument can be said of Aikido. It has been said that 90% of aikido is atemi. Yet, 90% of the focus is spent on other things, other than atemi. Makes you wonder where the atemi comes in, or are people generally missing the forest for the trees when they are looking at or practising "technique". Maybe they're looking through the wrong "lens" of technique, as a practical means to dispatch someone? Maybe it's just a "tool"... It's the exact same argument with training methods... as in a method of learning about combat, rather than a method of combat.

I don't think there is any way to separate the "education" from the "student". The range of people's martial IQs varies too greatly. And teachers teach at different levels - hopefully commensurate at the student's level of understanding.

Top
#407485 - 09/19/08 05:42 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
Dandjurdjevic,

I think we disagree on something pretty basic here. You seem to regard training methods and techniques as two seperate things. I do not. They are intimately interrelated. How you train largely determines what techniques you use and how you use them.

For example, notice that in Muay Thai, kicks are delivered primarily with the shin, knee or (less often) with the heel. This is not just the result of some ancient, sacred "tradition." Long ago, the extreme realism of Muay Thai taught Thai boxers an important lessen: that kicking with the foot carries a high risk of broken bones--for the kicker! Had Muay Thai not been practiced under "alive" conditions, they might never have gained this insight and Muay Thai kicking techniques would be far different today.

The bottom line: students, schools and/or styles that do not train under realistic, "alive" conditions are not likely to develop a strong repertiore of practical techniques. They may know a large number of techniques; they may even know some very complex techniques. But unless they have practiced them under realistic conditions, how can they know which ones work and which ones don't? How can they know what aspect of a given techniques needs modification and/or improvement? Sorry, but unless you practice "alive" training, it is all just dancing.

Top
#407486 - 09/19/08 07:46 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
I don't think the Thai boxers use their techniques just because of "extreme realism". A front kick with the ball of the foot requires a great deal more time to learn.

And please - call me Dan.
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407487 - 09/19/08 08:36 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
butterfly Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 3012
Loc: Torrance, CA
FB,

This is where I 'mostly' agree with you and I am not playing both sides of the field, if it appears this way. So I want to make clear how I view things. First, I dislike people dousing water on others’ martial arts interests, so I have mentioned this in my other posts. This is not directed at you, btw, just making my perspective known--their decisions, their reasons and not for someone else to disabuse them of it if they enjoy it.

However, if functional use is mandated for equally adept and willing students, then I think there are clear training protocols that win out over other training. So I see performance forked between two things that are inextricably tied, but which can be looked at separately. And those are the student and his training.

All things being equal in the realm of the student’s willingness to train and wanting utility out of that training, then one has to focus on education. Utility can only be measured by functional use in an unscripted environment. If you had a clone of two individuals and gave one a traditional martial arts education over the span of a year that relied "mostly" on kata and solo practice of technique, and gave the other some focus mitt training, sparring and a partner(s) to punch, kick and grapple with while increasing the intensity over time, my bet is not on the one studying kata to have more useable techniques if it came to relying on them in a fight. This doesn’t say that the kata guy only does kata or that the “live” practitioner doesn’t stand in front of a mirror sometimes to tweak a hook punch. What it does suggest is a preponderance of effort in one area over another will give you better and quicker results.

So, to make myself understood….not all education is created equal and neither are the students. How one is able to use one’s own education or chooses other paths to utility is up to the student. However, some education, IMO, will serve the student better if willingness and capability is there to use it when compared to other forms of education. One does not swim best by flailing one’s arms on dry land. You learn to swim by getting into the water and then later moving into the deep end.

Top
#407488 - 09/19/08 10:42 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: butterfly]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
Nor does jumping into the deep end on the first lesson mean that the doggy paddle is optimum for swimming. It isn't - irrespective of the fact that it is "natural", "no-nonsense", "straightforward", "easy to learn" and "useful immediately". And it doesn't matter how long you perfect it - in the water or in front of a mirror.

The kata clone in your hypothetical will be less prepared for combat that the gloves and bags clone. But he needn't stay that way. He will learn a formal version of freestyle, backstroke, breastroke and butterfly. Now all he needs to do is start applying it.

This is the difference between training and technique.

The chief difference in the analogy is that, unlike swimming, tennis, golf - you name it - combat has almost infinite angles of movement and variables. This means that "doggy paddle" will be much more tempting and that "breastroke" will be harder to apply. It doesn't mean it is impossible. And it doesn't mean that the "extreme training" that has produced doggy paddle will be producing the optimum method. The "extreme training" if anything, discourages experimentation and development of better technique. It encourages conservative reliance on what you already know.

No one disputes the value of "live" training. But all too often on this forum I hear people devaluing the importance of technical development (or the assumption that honing the right cross to within an inch of its life is the same thing).

You need a mix of both live training and technical progression. Just as you need to get out into the "real world", you shoudn't rely on your grade 7 texts for ever.


Edited by dandjurdjevic (09/19/08 11:10 PM)

Top
#407489 - 09/20/08 02:11 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
As an aside, I think that BJJ is a good example of technique (not surpising since it is firmly based on judo and jujutsu, depending on how you want to label the activity that spread to Brazil). It is much richer and more complex than what people in ring sports adopt as a stand up strategy.

Grappling is however different from striking arts in that it can only be practised with a partner - hence it has never had single person kata etc. even in the traditional realm. But the technical complexity (stemming from tma) is there - same as the stand up tma arts. Imho, that the latter (eg. the art of deflection, front kicks) are not being absorbed by ring fighters is a function of the fact that they require a lot of dedicated study and are therefore largely misunderstood, not that they are inapplicable.

Unlike grappling, stand up dynamics are also a lot more variable, making it harder to apply skilled techniques cleanly. The fact that application also means a missing tooth (rather than a twisted arm) goes without saying.
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407490 - 09/21/08 12:30 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Taison]
GansuKid Offline
Member

Registered: 03/20/08
Posts: 36
As most know Hapkido is the Korean spin off of Aiki Jujustu.

I’m a Hapkidoka and I have a strong Judo and Aikido background as well. The Dojang that I belong to also is a serious Muay Thai gym as well as an MMA fight club with established fighters. So I’m infused with realistic conditions and serious skilled opponents.

I’d thought I post some of by beliefs and experience on the practicality of Martial Arts stemming from Aiki Jujutsu.

To the Point: They are highly practical if learned in a realistic environment. Yet… pure and simple, they are not conducive for sport. This factor alone…. can and does alter the training standards of various schools. If you are training for sport you have a major plus in competition, which is a huge plus in martial arts because of your adversary’s unwillingness to comply with your strategies and tactics and your need to adapt. (This we all know….just stating a fact)

The problem is.....To really get to know how to apply arts stemming from Aiki jujutsu you first have to A) train an individual how to respond to the techniques being applied (break falls, escapes etc etc..* which in itself is an acrobatic art form * then you have to train your partner to actually fight in a skilled realistic manner. Then and only then….. you can learn how to adapt to your adversary’s unwillingness to comply with Aiki jujutsu strategies and tactics. Then you can start throwing strikes and attempt to manipulate your opponent’s guard, blocks and parrys by “smothering or half clinching” in order to apply a technique. (For those that don't know...this is the offensive side to these arts…. It’s how it’s used against a skilled opponent.

The main reason you don’t see strategies and tactics (* besides grappling) that stem from Aiki jujutsu in MMA is because you can’t do them! Period!!! They are illegal! If you instructor is telling you wrist locks, throes stemming from wrist locks…. to include projection throws etc etc…. don’t work (or you yourself are convinced that these techniques are not effective…because you haven’t seen them in an MMA environment) please be advised that they do indeed do work and you are uniformed. And hopefully you don't come accross someone who is willing to apply these techniques on you.)

Unlike an arm bar, triangle choke, Kimora or the other various submissions seen in MMA (which can all be applied “once set” in a gradual application allowing the opponent to submit before injury…) techniques stemming from Aiki Jujutsu don’t allow this sporting luxury. If I go for a wrist throw I either got it or don’t…there is no in-between…I either break my opponents wrist and dislocate his elbow and he goes into shock....or I loose the grip and something else happens… Same goes for a projection throw, I either throw my opponent in a way he can’t fall safely (like on his head!) or they maintain their balance and they escape. No in-betweens! (hence not applicable to sport!)

The video at the beginning of the thread is a good example. Look at some of the throws stemming from the actual kicks. Then ask yourself what the technique would be like if the force and intent was ratcheted up to realistic intent. Then ask yourself how many times someone could actually practice said technique or how many times an Uke/opponent could be on the relieving end.

I'm not saying "because of the nature of these arts one shouldn't practice with real intent" I'm saying one should look at the non sporting aspect when veiwing the various techniqes and question do they or will they lead to "real prowess" If so I say ok... I judge the video by those critera...

Top
#407491 - 09/22/08 12:19 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: GansuKid]
Taison Offline
The Forum Dragon
Professional Poster

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 3629
Loc: BKK, Thailand
Now you're starting to sound like another Grady;

Quote:

is because you can’t do them! Period!!! They are illegal!


No, because no one has the ability to apply it in a MMA format. It's just that simple. There have been people who've tried doing wristlocks throws and stuff, and just ended up eating a fist to the face and getting themselves clinched.

Quote:

I either break my opponents wrist and dislocate his elbow and he goes into shock....


You sound like you're breaking plastic bones and not ones made out of a calcium compound.

Quote:

No in-betweens! (hence not applicable to sport!)


Let me rephrase this. It's not applicable to sports because there's no in-between. It usually fails, that's why.

Quote:

I either throw my opponent in a way he can’t fall safely (like on his head!)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtFvR7QRmow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o3uf77tzUs [at 1:25]

What do you call those? Safe throws?


What you Hapkido/Aikido dudes keep doing again and again is that 'It's not safe for sports' excuse. I'm tired of it already.

Quote:

please be advised that they do indeed do work and you are uniformed.


Wow, another ad hominem attack. What's next? I'm a noob and all my years of training is just a big failure? Thanks for that.

Quote:

Unlike an arm bar, triangle choke, Kimora or the other various submissions seen in MMA (which can all be applied “once set” in a gradual application allowing the opponent to submit before injury…)


Yes, which means they have superiour application in that they can be controlled unlike, the way you mentioned Aikido's techniques which only have break or no break. I could easily dislocate a shoulder using a juji-gatame, or ude-garami, by applying it quickly and forcefully. But I don't because I have control, which seems to me you lack in Aikido/Hapkido.

Quote:

Then ask yourself what the technique would be like if the force and intent was ratcheted up to realistic intent.


Realistic intent? Like I said in my first post. The guy on his knee's would be lying on the ground and would probably be very injured from that encounter.

~Donnie
_________________________
I got two fists.. Don't make me use my head as well!

Top
#407492 - 09/22/08 04:09 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Taison]
Taison Offline
The Forum Dragon
Professional Poster

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 3629
Loc: BKK, Thailand
Here's another thing I'm going to prove using visible evidence;

Throws in MMA isn't 'safe' most of the time;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXbe5DdqAlI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4tgGkJzQ68
Horrible music, aye, but look at the throws. Now I ask you, are the throws in Aikido much more devastating than this? If yes, why isn't anyone using them?

Quote:

And hopefully you don't come accross someone who is willing to apply these techniques on you.)


Yes, because then they'll notice that it doesn't work the way it ought to.

Quote:

then you have to train your partner to actually fight in a skilled realistic manner. Then and only then….. you can learn how to adapt to your adversary’s unwillingness to comply with Aiki jujutsu strategies and tactics.


Which usually ends up being choreographed and too much compliance as I've shown in the video in the first post of this topic.

Quote:

they are not conducive for sport.


Why? Try explaining without using the whole 'it's not safe for MMA format' excuse. Just why?

How hard can it be? Just train a few aikido-ka, tell them to only use Aikido, step into the ring or octagon, and show us the whole 'secret world' of aikido which none of us has seen yet. I think many of the MMA people are quite willing to get injured just to learn something new.

Until you give me a valid reason why Aikido is too 'dangerous' to be used in sports, then any and all excuses are just that; excuses, empty attempts to deflect the question at hand.

Also you made me think; if there's no 'in-betweens' when it comes to using aikido techiques, which I disbelieve, how can you teach the art? If there's only white and black sides to the art, then either you'd be teaching good but most likely dangerous techniques to your students, or just sloppy replicas that can't be used, right? So, to teach the art right, you have to either injure your students to show them it's potentially dangerous, or you just show them something similar but doesn't work and feed them a false sense of confidence and say 'if you do it this way, you could injure your opponent'. When it comes to the real thing however, your students would be doing that fake 'replica' of the techniques which you taught them.

Note to mods; I'm not art-bashing. I'm bashing the training methods, and the constant deflection of a simple question; why do they always claim to be too 'dangerous' for sport?

~Donnie
_________________________
I got two fists.. Don't make me use my head as well!

Top
#407493 - 09/22/08 05:15 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Taison]
eyrie Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 12/28/04
Posts: 3106
Loc: QLD, Australia
C'mon Donnie... those slams aren't just unsafe, they're outright dangerous. A mis-time, mis-step, wrong angle, and you can get a snapped neck. A slam like that in Rugby, what they call a spear tackle, is illegal and can incur a period of 6-8 week suspension from playing further games. A spear tackle like some of those "slams" on those videos, can actually damage and crack the cervical vertebrae at C1/C2 - which at best, you end up in a neck brace for a couple of months, maybe with pain and tingling down the arms to the fingers, or at worse, instantaneous death.

The throws in Aikido aren't any more or less dangerous than those in jujitsu or judo. Kata garuma is a dangerous throw isn't it? IF you throw the person in a certain way? But you don't practice it THAT way in class do you?

Besides, GansuKid is talking about Hapkido... a very very different beast, or maybe not so. The trick of course is knowing how to turn it into an unsafe throw, as opposed to practising the santized version. Not the sort of thing people normally share with noobs in the dojo, let alone on a public forum.

Sometimes you got to use your head and extrapolate how dangerous something is/is not or can made to be. Anything's going to be "too dangerous" for sport if people aren't going to play safe and sportsman-like, which one should not expect in a sport fight, much less another contact sport like Thugby.

Top
#407494 - 09/22/08 05:49 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: eyrie]
Taison Offline
The Forum Dragon
Professional Poster

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 3629
Loc: BKK, Thailand
Hi Eyrie long time we haven't had a convo,

Yes, I agree with you but he did say that Aiki-jujutsu's techniques are 'too dangerous' to be used in an MMA format, which I just had to show him some of those throws and ask whether or not they're safe because I assume if the throws in Aikido/Aiki-jujutsu are 'unsafe' then he must also mean that those in MMA are 'safe'. Sure, might be a mis-interpretation on my part.

Kata guruma, is indeed a dangerous throw if done with malicious intent (standing instead of kneeled, throwing the uke head first, etc). In drills however, we do practice it the proper way as we are supposed to do in randori, competitions or tournaments, just without the malicious intent, and in the most efficient way to deliver it (on your knees, the uke landing on his back instead of neck).

Quote:

The trick of course is knowing how to turn it into an unsafe throw


Yes, agreed. But you need some practical experience of it as well, not just theory. But then again, I'm an "drilled into your skull" type of MArtist. If you haven't drilled it 1000nd of times, then it's not going to happen when you want it to.

Quote:

Anything's going to be "too dangerous" for sport if people aren't going to play safe and sportsman-like, which one should not expect in a sport fight


Exactly, all these aiki/hapki/etc etc guys keeps saying they're going to play un-sportsman like yet they never do. They don't even show us to what extent they're able to do in an MMA format, but instead resorts to stating "I can do this, and it'll be super lethal". C'mon, a wrestler could pick a person up in a fight, and suplex his neck and instantly kill him, however, he doesn't because he has the skill set to make the fight relatively safe (i.e. not lethal) and 'sportsman' like. If the arts that the poster said are unable to have this skillset to make it 'safe' then I assume, those arts have very little control over their own techniques and needs to learn fake replicas of the 'true' techniques.

Quote:

Thugby


Hey! Rugby is a hooligans sport played by gentlemen! I used to play rugby, and even though we hurt each others a bit in the field, we used to enjoy a pint of beer afterwards together with the other team.

~Donnie
_________________________
I got two fists.. Don't make me use my head as well!

Top
#407495 - 09/22/08 11:13 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Taison]
iaibear Offline
Veteran

Registered: 08/24/05
Posts: 1304
Loc: upstate New York
They have been doing piledrivers for years in Pro Wrestling

Top
#407496 - 09/22/08 11:41 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: iaibear]
BrianS Offline
Higher rank than you
Professional Poster

Registered: 11/04/05
Posts: 5959
Loc: Northwest Arkansas
Spiking someone the head is illegal in ufc.
_________________________
The2nd ammendment, it makes all the others possible. <///<




Top
#407497 - 09/22/08 12:31 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Taison]
Ames Offline
Veteran

Registered: 05/29/05
Posts: 1117
Quote:

No, because no one has the ability to apply it in a MMA format. It's just that simple. There have been people who've tried doing wristlocks throws and stuff, and just ended up eating a fist to the face and getting themselves clinched.





Although neither of these are 'wristlock's', here are two examples of techniques practiced regularly in Aikido working in an MMA environmet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxm09n5lIMk

Which leads me to beleive that there are indeed many facets of Aikido, on a direct technique level, that can indeed be used in a ring environment. The problem? Neither MMA nor most Aikidoka train to use them there.

Also interesting, is the attack in the first clip-- I thought no trained fighter EVER telegraphed a lunge like that!

--Chris


Edited by Ames (09/22/08 12:37 PM)
_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."
--Basho

Top
#407498 - 09/22/08 12:43 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Ames]
JMWcorwin Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 07/13/07
Posts: 731
Loc: SoCal, USA
Excellent find Ames.

That guy who took the, well we call it an elbow attack (don't know the Japanese or Aikido term), looked like he's going to need quite a bit of healing time. I've had my elbow hyper extended with that one when I was cooperating. I can just imagine the damage if the opponent is fighting the momentum.
_________________________
There are no PERFECT techniques, only perfect execution for the situation at hand. ~Corwin

Top
#407499 - 09/22/08 12:53 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Ames]
BrianS Offline
Higher rank than you
Professional Poster

Registered: 11/04/05
Posts: 5959
Loc: Northwest Arkansas
I don't believe those were specifically aikido techniques. Many arts could attribute those moves to their styles(judo, karate, etc). They were good though!

Who were the fighters and what does their profile say about their aikido experience?
_________________________
The2nd ammendment, it makes all the others possible. <///<




Top
#407500 - 09/22/08 01:04 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: BrianS]
Ames Offline
Veteran

Registered: 05/29/05
Posts: 1117
You know, I'm not sure if they even had any Aikido training. The point I'm making is that the techniques trained in Aikido can indeed be used in a sporting environment. I would like to know if either of those fighters (I don't know their names) training Aikido. I have been told that there are some techniques taken directly from Aikido in Japanese Shooto--but again, I'm no expert.

The thing here is that the techniques that many Aikido practice can be applied to a live environment.

--Chris
_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."
--Basho

Top
#407501 - 09/22/08 02:17 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
Dan,

I agree a well executed front kick with the ball of the foot is hard to perfect. However, no matter how expert you become at it, the chances of breaking your foot while doing it remain high. Kicking with the heel is a safer option.

I am not sure why you see the time element as crucial; Muay Thai fighters spend years and years training to improve their skills, just like all martial artists.

Top
#407502 - 09/22/08 02:26 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Ames]
butterfly Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 3012
Loc: Torrance, CA
Ames,

I agree. I don't think it has ever been a question of utility of any particular technique. One can make anything work given the right set of circumstances and an able performer. It is, however, the aesthetic of the technique, the way it is trained to be used, the probability of successful use depending on the situation, and in the capability of the performer that often distinguishes why people seek to train certain ways with respect to applying a "style's" techniques.

The argument in using techniques that people seem to haggle over is in the method of training for that utility and why, not if the techniques lack efficacy when employed. In many cases, when a "real" fight is on, it doesn't look exactly like the technique practiced in the training hall. It looks pretty much like a MMA fight, regardless of the style studied, loaded with the same principles and applications of movement that all MAs share.

However, to get to a point of using these techniques, one has to ask how best it would be to train for them. And that is where the person and his studies have to come to an agreement of wants and expectations.

Top
#407503 - 09/22/08 02:32 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: butterfly]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
butterfly,

As to your reluctance to "douse water" on the martial arts interests of others: I don't think any area of human activity, be it martial arts or religion, ought to be above critical anyalysis. As Bill Maher once said, "you have every right to keep telling me why you believe in your religion, and I have every right to keep telling you it's dumb." I understand I am probably in the minority here. However, for me, honesty trumps the desire to avoid conflict.

As far as your example of kata vs. "alive" training, I agree 100%--I wouldn't bet on the kata guy either. But I would go even further. I bet if we took two people of equal intelligence and ability, had one train with pads, live opponents, etc for a year, and had the other train in kata for 20 years, 25 years, 30 years--you name it--the kata guy would STILL get his butt kicked. Kata training has zero to do with fighting. Again, I suspect I will be in the minority on this one.

Top
#407504 - 09/22/08 03:24 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: eyrie]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
Eyrie,

When I wrote that post, I was reiterating a point you made several times in the past--i.e.that we who complained because we could not find examples of aikido being practiced in an "alive" manner were missing the point. Aikido, according to you, operated according to a different "paradigm." I hope I am not misrepresenting you by putting it that way. And please don't ask me to comb through your hundreds of posts to find your exact words; you can do that quicker than I can.

As far as judo goes, nearly all judo schools operate according to a "sports oreinted syllabus." Those that do not are few and far between, and are not really representative of what we usually term "judo." I suspect randoori-oriented aikido schools are just as unrepresetative of what we usually term "aikido."

Top
#407505 - 09/22/08 03:53 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
Ames Offline
Veteran

Registered: 05/29/05
Posts: 1117
Quote:

As far as your example of kata vs. "alive" training, I agree 100%--I wouldn't bet on the kata guy either. But I would go even further. I bet if we took two people of equal intelligence and ability, had one train with pads, live opponents, etc for a year, and had the other train in kata for 20 years, 25 years, 30 years--you name it--the kata guy would STILL get his butt kicked. Kata training has zero to do with fighting. Again, I suspect I will be in the minority on this one.






Really? This is a completely subjective statement, without any evidence backing it up whatsoever.

In that video I posted, when that elbow was hyperextended, do you think that MMA practioner trained that technique 'alive' before hand?

--Chris
_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."
--Basho

Top
#407506 - 09/22/08 04:17 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
butterfly Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 3012
Loc: Torrance, CA
Quote:

I don't think any area of human activity, be it martial arts or religion, ought to be above critical anyalysis. As Bill Maher once said, "you have every right to keep telling me why you believe in your religion, and I have every right to keep telling you it's dumb."




I again agree. However, one can point to evidence to support your contentions and one can ask reasons for someone else's convictions and argue about these; but what I think a person ought not to do is be patronizing toward someone else's choice if it is an informed one, despite anyone's dislike of that choice.

I am not saying you are patronizing here, since I have only seen some good robust back-and-forths (and this is one of the few interesting threads of late). But arguments that twist in the wind between two different reasons for study of an MA often degrade to this point of patronizing no-return. Someone's choices are his own.

On the other hand, if he chooses to argue about effects of those choices that's another story. Arguing exclusively about the wrongness or rightness of why choose this route and not another, especially if there is exposure to other training methods, seems outside the ken of the argument of personal efficacy in the martial arts since that again comes from an internalized perspective that someone else can't comment on. Just the way I think.

Top
#407507 - 09/22/08 04:46 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Ames]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
It is a subjective statement, specifically a subjective statement known as an "opinion." And, as I said, I suspect not many people on here will share it.

I certainly cannot back up my opinion on this with "hard" evidence. Someone who believed the opposite--i.e. that practicing kata was an important part of becoming a skilled fighter--could not offer any "hard" evidence either. But since asking for evidence is legitimate, let me point out the following:

1) Kata are only common to some (most) "traditional" Eastern martial arts. Boxing and wrestling, for example, do not employ formal kata as a training method. Yet this in no way limits their effectiveness. If kata are so important, why is it some martial arts do perfectly well without them?

2) There appears to be a rough correlation between the amount of "alive" training martial artists engage in and how much importance they attach to kata. In general, the more realistic training gets, the less kata are emphasized. It is telling that among Eastern arts, uber-realistic Muay Thai stands out for NOT using kata.

3) In 25 years of MA training, no one has been able to give me a coherent, specific reason why kata are practiced. Whenever I asked, I usually got a vague answer suggesting the nuances of technique were somehow "hidden" in kata. As a former high school teacher with some knowledge of pedagogy, I can assure you that "hiding" vital information from students is flat out idiotic no mattter how you do it. Other times, I was simply assured that since kata were part of the "tradition," someone must have thought this all through long ago, and I should just have faith and practice kata despite my doubts. Again, sheer idiocy.

I think the real reason for kata is simple inertia. We do kata because our teachers tell us we should. They did kata because their teachers told them they should. And so, and so on. Some people call this preserving traditon; I call it a lack of critical thinking.

Top
#407508 - 09/22/08 05:20 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
Zach_Zinn Offline
Veteran

Registered: 12/09/07
Posts: 1031
Loc: Olympia, WA
What is your opinion on Judo kata Fileboy, out of curiousity?

Top
#407509 - 09/22/08 05:25 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
butterfly Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 3012
Loc: Torrance, CA
The thread is derailed (sorry for that), and I agree with you for what its worth. On the other hand, for those who do claim utility out of kata, I am not someone who can gainsay it either if that is what they say informs some of their abilities. And if they say doing X gives them some holistic understanding of movement, well I can’t counter that since it is subjective. We can, however, base credible development of use of fighting techniques in contention with others who subscribe to certain styles or methods---and I have yet to see a TMAist wallop a more modern MAist who uses boxing or grappling, or a MMAist. This still doesn’t prove the point though, since these could be good examples of one and sorrier examples of the other. And as I have been pointing out in SD terms, all this stuff is really over rated in my opinion.

The problem arises in taking any particular example and stating this is indicative of the whole. Same with having someone winning a fight and saying that he used KI to vanquish his opponent. Whether he believes it was a KI laden techniques or not, does not mean he used it, just believes he did. Could be just a skillful fighter laying his skills on the altar of something other than himself. Though the good thing with a fighter who professes no KI related abilities in his wins is that it’s him and his training and nothing more special than the physical abilities he learned and can employ.

Top
#407510 - 09/22/08 05:55 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Zach_Zinn]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
Judo kata are marginally better because they at least involve two people. Two person kata are okay as a starting point, as one gradually learns to apply techniques. Does that mean judo needs kata? Not at all. Wrestling, similar to judo in many respects, does fine without them. Judo could survive the loss of its kata without any ill effects, I am sure.

BTW--other martial arts also feature two-person kata. I should have specified my objection was mainly aimed at the overemphasis one one-person kata. Sorry about that.

Top
#407511 - 09/22/08 06:28 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
Zach_Zinn Offline
Veteran

Registered: 12/09/07
Posts: 1031
Loc: Olympia, WA
Quote:

Judo kata are marginally better because they at least involve two people. Two person kata are okay as a starting point, as one gradually learns to apply techniques. Does that mean judo needs kata? Not at all. Wrestling, similar to judo in many respects, does fine without them. Judo could survive the loss of its kata without any ill effects, I am sure.

BTW--other martial arts also feature two-person kata. I should have specified my objection was mainly aimed at the overemphasis one one-person kata. Sorry about that.




Overemphasis on solo performance of kata is more about bad usage of class time IMO.

Karate Kata are meant to be trained two man as well as solo....some people spend alot more time on the application bit. I'm sure you'd find something in the method to disagree with, but it's a bit inaccurate to take "Kata training" (at least in a Karate etc. context imo) and assume that means strictly solo performance.

That's the problem with the example of a guy doing pads etc. and one guy just doing Kata, it isn't that common anymore (at least from what I see) to find people that just train solo kata all the time.


Edited by Zach_Zinn (09/22/08 06:34 PM)

Top
#407512 - 09/23/08 12:21 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Zach_Zinn]
Taison Offline
The Forum Dragon
Professional Poster

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 3629
Loc: BKK, Thailand
Ames,

The first technique is aikido'ish. But the second one when the guy hyper-extended the elbow, well, that's a very common technique done in Judo's kata.

So... again, it's not all Aikido.

Now, how did this thread become all talk about katas?

~Donnie
_________________________
I got two fists.. Don't make me use my head as well!

Top
#407513 - 09/23/08 10:53 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Taison]
butterfly Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 3012
Loc: Torrance, CA
Taison, or could it be that when people actually train application and apply it well, it all looks pretty much the same? Could be Aikido, Karate, Kung Fu, BJJ or Judo....but if it works, it uses the same principles, and you apply it when someone doesn't want you to, call it what you want.

Top
#407514 - 09/23/08 01:15 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Taison]
Ames Offline
Veteran

Registered: 05/29/05
Posts: 1117
Taison, I agree that this technique is indeed found in the kata (or waza) of various arts. Although, I'm also fairly sure that the Judo kata in particular actually have a lot of pre-war Aikibudo (Aikido) in them, as Tomiki played a significant role in their development. On this though, I'd have to defer to someone who knows more about Tomiki or about Judo.

However, going back to the essence of your point, yes these techniques are found in various TMA waza. I'm not really trying to say that Aikido is specifically being used--just that some of the techniques prevalent in it have been used. Further, and most importantly, the first technique is an example of one that is impossible to train fully alive, yet also quite successful (apprently) in a ring environment. As a matter of fact, perhaps too much so (alot of damage was done to his opponent).

Many people have in the past voiced the opinion that these techniques, and standing joint locks in general are difficult, low percentage techniques. Although this certainly applies to some of them (kotegashi/wrist techniques from standing for instance) what I'm suggesting here is that this is not the case. Many of these locks/dislocations/hyperextensions do work in a live environent. However, many can not be trained live without serious damage to your partner.

Also, there has been voiced, not in this thread but others, the opinion that Kano 'only took what worked' from tradional Judo and left the rest out. I disagree with this. I think in fact that many of these techniques work TOO WELL, and were therefore removed because the chance of injury was far to great. Many site the early shiai tournaments as examples of the sportive overcoming tradional; but, in fact, all ryuha's had techniques that were regarded as unfair and illegal to use in shiai. They were judged as too dangerous, as they caused immediate, and often irrepairable damage to the opponent. So although Kano's Judo was vicotorious in terms of creating the best environment to practice and nurture shiai-based skill, I don't think we should dismiss these techniques based on that.

Getting the point, I think that the techniques found in Aikido and other TMA have not been researched nearly enough by MMAist's. Just as Aikido has much to learn (from my opinion) regarding the training method's of modern MMA, I think MMA has lot to learn from those tradional Budo's which fall outside of sporting diciplines.

So in the end, no, those examples I gave do not validate 'Aikido' in the tradional sense. But just a Muay Thai roundhouse used outside it's tradional context and within the new MMA context helps to validate the technique (whether that person has studied tradional Muay Thai or not), so to should these 'Aikido' techniques--whether directly learned from Aikido or not.

A really good example of standing locks/dislocations being used in sportive environments is the anceint Greek sport of Pankration. These techniques are often depicted, and from that we can theorise that they were often used successfully.


--Chris


Edited by Ames (09/23/08 01:18 PM)
_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."
--Basho

Top
#407515 - 09/23/08 02:36 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: butterfly]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
butterfly,

I hear this kind of thing all the time: "You can't say X thing about martial art Y because the way one individual does X may not be the way all individuals do X."

I have two major problems with this line of arguement:

1) People ONLY resort to these kinds of arguments when their art, or some feature of their art, is being criticized. When, for example, someone says, "aikido is impractical," aikidoka leap out of the woodwork claiming "you can't generalize from just one school" or "you can't generalize from just a few practioners." However, when practioners are praising, or simply discussing, this or that aspect of their art, their concerns about overgeneralization magically disappear.

2) Although some variation certainly exists between schools and individuals purporting to teach and/or practice the same art, I think the degree of that variation is wildly exaggerated. Visit any 10 taekwon do schools at random, and I promise you the similarities between them will far outweigh the differences. Train with any 10 TKD practioners at random, and I promise you their kicking skills will be far better developed than their wrestling skills.

Top
#407516 - 09/23/08 04:51 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
Ames Offline
Veteran

Registered: 05/29/05
Posts: 1117
fileboy, you raise some good points. Now here's mine:

If Muay Thai is validated by the success of its techniques in MMA, why not Aikido?

'Muay Thai' itself is not in MMA. Just some of the techniques. Although there are some fighters that come from a Muay Thai background, there are many others who have never studied the art. They have only studied the techniques. Same for BJJ, many simply call what they do groundwork.

Or, for another example, let's say tommorow everyone decided to only study Sambo. Would everyone say, "Well just because it LOOKS like a BJJ armbar, doesn't mean BJJ is better. Sambo is obviously the best, because that's what all the top fighters study."
In essence that's the line of reasoning I'm hearing.

"It doesn't matter if those techniques work, he could have learned them from any art..."

Give me a break. No single art is represented in MMA, only portions of those arts. No single art has the 'proper' training paradigm--that's why a new one had to be invented: MMA. Someone who studies only BJJ in this day and age is as likely to lose to a trained Mixed Martial Artists as an Aikidoka who has only studied Aikido.

What I'm trying to get at is that many facets of Aikido are indeed workable in an MMA setting. Very few have bothered to try though because they are too busy following the party line. Ironic that this is the same accusation that is leveled at those in the TMA.


--Chris
_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."
--Basho

Top
#407517 - 09/23/08 04:56 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Ames]
BrianS Offline
Higher rank than you
Professional Poster

Registered: 11/04/05
Posts: 5959
Loc: Northwest Arkansas
great posts Ames!

Quote:

Getting the point, I think that the techniques found in Aikido and other TMA have not been researched nearly enough by MMAist's. Just as Aikido has much to learn (from my opinion) regarding the training method's of modern MMA, I think MMA has lot to learn from those tradional Budo's which fall outside of sporting diciplines.






This quote is worthy of its' own thread!!

Do you mind if I steal it?
_________________________
The2nd ammendment, it makes all the others possible. <///<




Top
#407518 - 09/23/08 05:27 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Taison]
GansuKid Offline
Member

Registered: 03/20/08
Posts: 36
Taison
"Sir Bansalot" wrote

Note to mods; I'm not art-bashing. I'm bashing the training methods, and the constant deflection of a simple question; why do they always claim to be too 'dangerous' for sport? "



That was a mongo diatribe Taison!!!!

Do you do MMA? The Dojang I train out of does…and they are HUGE into Muay Thai to boot… Zip me a PM and I’ll be glad to give you the web site. (Only in order to show you that I’m not from some weak school…that plays instead of trains…your welcome to explore us further…..

We have wrestlers, Jujitsuka …etc etc. .All come to spar and roll with us..

Do I do MMA? Nope… Do a sparr guys that do MMa? Heck YA! All the time! Every time I get a chance! Can I pull off Aiki jujutsu techniques on MMA guys …Heck YA! Would I? HECK NO! Why would I want to attack someone in that manner in a sporting environment? (I'm not even adding in that they would know how to counter the techniques...)

Are we talking about the same thing…I wonder?

Aiki Jujutsu techniques are designed to maim and kill

Hopefully, I’m not talking to a guy sold on the prowess of all thing MMA (they tend to believe they are forging new ground in martial arts and everything that came before them not tested in an octagon is crap)……Once I get talking to them (internet MMA aficionados) I usually find out that they don’t even know what a basic real Ippon Seoi Nage does.. (No…its not just a throw..... the sporting version is a throw.... the actual Aiki jujutsu version is an arm break that results in a throw…. Big difference… I used a basic Judo technique (that stemmed from Aiki jujutsu) to for simplistic reasons.



I don’t think without seeing or feeling it done, you would understand how Akiki jujutsu techniques are pulled offensively.

Do you even know what a shiho nage is?


What? You think someone who is proficient will stand there and wait for an attack…Lol….Not in Hapkido…(I’m assuming it’s the same in Aikido or Diatoryu etc..) We come in punching and kicking just like everybody else….What?…MMA guys don’t block? They do at my Dojang heck… I start getting hit I start covering up…Once you cover up…Shiho nage! Does right … the shoulder is dislocated and the elbow broken… Game over it’s a show stopper! …would I ever pull it as its devise to be? Heck no! why? SPORT


SPORT! Once again SPORT!

These techniques are no different in efficacy and effectiveness than any Shime waza, Ne waza etc etc..found in Jujitsu ect…

You can say what you want…But…I don’t even entertain… the nonsense your trying to sell.. No matter what you say I’ll come back with the same stuff I stated before...why because I know… Which is different that saying I think or I seen...or I've read... I have experienced it

Big difference..........

Top
#407519 - 09/23/08 06:38 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: GansuKid]
BrianS Offline
Higher rank than you
Professional Poster

Registered: 11/04/05
Posts: 5959
Loc: Northwest Arkansas
Quote:

Aiki Jujutsu techniques are designed to maim and kill





I don't buy the whole "too deadly" argument. It's been hashed out and disproven.
_________________________
The2nd ammendment, it makes all the others possible. <///<




Top
#407520 - 09/23/08 10:08 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: BrianS]
GansuKid Offline
Member

Registered: 03/20/08
Posts: 36
Hashed out and disproved....

I just don't accept your realty no matter how you spin it. I'm too old and have seen too much to be impressed with Internet bravado or multiple internet youtube links...or quip lines like "I don't buy the whole "too deadly" argument. It's been hashed out and disproved"....

Nor am I going to let you define my premise ( you do know what a premise is....?

....there are arts out there that are not pliable to sport... that's the facts.

Arts stemming from Aiki-jujutsu (which has a long history of being highly effective...another fact.... is one of those arts

Again... your probably one of those guys who don't even no what a shiho nage is, let alone know how its applied offensively... or something as basic as a judo ippon Seoi Nage and what the real seio nage is ... Because you never seen it done on Youtube…

What's the next move? Oh…I know…"State: because I can't find people in a MMA venue on youtube performing Aiki-jujutsu techniques therefore I'm full of it....?

Lol.. Again these techniques are illegal in most if not all MMA venues. That’s why you don't see them....not because they don't work...

Illegal you do know the definition of illegal,,,right? You do understand that most Aiki jujtsu is found to be illegal in MMA…Right?

From here on out….
Anything posted in repley to my words I’m just going to copy and paste what I said above as my retort. Because I've stated what I know. Again its not what I believe. Its not what I seen on youtube or spike tv...but what I've experienced...


Edited by GansuKid (09/23/08 10:15 PM)

Top
#407521 - 09/23/08 10:34 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Ames]
GansuKid Offline
Member

Registered: 03/20/08
Posts: 36
Quote:

Taison,

However, going back to the essence of your point, yes these techniques are found in various TMA waza. I'm not really trying to say that Aikido is specifically being used--just that some of the techniques prevalent in it have been used. Further, and most importantly, the first technique is an example of one that is impossible to train fully alive, yet also quite successful (apprently) in a ring environment. As a matter of fact, perhaps too much so (alot of damage was done to his opponent).

Many people have in the past voiced the opinion that these techniques, and standing joint locks in general are difficult, low percentage techniques. Although this certainly applies to some of them (kotegashi/wrist techniques from standing for instance) what I'm suggesting here is that this is not the case. Many of these locks/dislocations/hyperextensions do work in a live environent. However, many can not be trained live without serious damage to your partner.

Also, there has been voiced, not in this thread but others, the opinion that Kano 'only took what worked' from tradional Judo and left the rest out. I disagree with this. I think in fact that many of these techniques work TOO WELL, and were therefore removed because the chance of injury was far to great. Many site the early shiai tournaments as examples of the sportive overcoming tradional; but, in fact, all ryuha's had techniques that were regarded as unfair and illegal to use in shiai. They were judged as too dangerous, as they caused immediate, and often irrepairable damage to the opponent. So although Kano's Judo was vicotorious in terms of creating the best environment to practice and nurture shiai-based skill, I don't think we should dismiss these techniques based on that.

Getting the point, I think that the techniques found in Aikido and other TMA have not been researched nearly enough by MMAist's. Just as Aikido has much to learn (from my opinion) regarding the training method's of modern MMA, I think MMA has lot to learn from those tradional Budo's which fall outside of sporting diciplines.



A really good example of standing locks/dislocations being used in sportive environments is the anceint Greek sport of Pankration. These techniques are often depicted, and from that we can theorise that they were often used successfully.
--Chris




Exactly Chris.... that's what I'm trying to get at when I say Aiki Jujutsu is not pliable to sport!.. Also its well known that Kano's top students (the one's who participated in the legendary match at the Tokyo Police Dept studied in Aiki-Jujutsu. In this match "as we all have read" people were maimed! That’s about as serious as you get…and far more realistic than any MMA bout I’ve ever seen…

… What’s funny is I can see people doubting this because they can't find it on youtube.


Edited by GansuKid (09/23/08 10:37 PM)

Top
#407522 - 09/23/08 11:02 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: GansuKid]
BrianS Offline
Higher rank than you
Professional Poster

Registered: 11/04/05
Posts: 5959
Loc: Northwest Arkansas
Quote:

Hashed out and disproved....

I just don't accept your realty no matter how you spin it. I'm too old and have seen too much to be impressed with Internet bravado or multiple internet youtube links...or quip lines like "I don't buy the whole "too deadly" argument. It's been hashed out and disproved"....




I can see that you clearly don't accept reality,lol.



Quote:

Nor am I going to let you define my premise ( you do know what a premise is....?





Do you know what condescending is?

Quote:

....there are arts out there that are not pliable to sport... that's the facts.

Arts stemming from Aiki-jujutsu (which has a long history of being highly effective...another fact.... is one of those arts




yes, there art many arts that don't do well in a sporting environment, however it's not because they are too deadly, it's because they don't have groundfighting or adequate striking skills.

Quote:

Again... your probably one of those guys who don't even no what a shiho nage is, let alone know how its applied offensively... or something as basic as a judo ippon Seoi Nage and what the real seio nage is ... Because you never seen it done on Youtube…




I could care less about what is posted on youtube. I could care less about how you want to paint a picture of me either. I happen to be a goju guy that has a little experience in many arts. It's the way I train that sets me apart though. BTW...how do japanese termed techniques give you a "one up"?? That's pretty ignorant.

Quote:

What's the next move? Oh…I know…"State: because I can't find people in a MMA venue on youtube performing Aiki-jujutsu techniques therefore I'm full of it....?




Again, what's the deal with youtube? I don't get my info there. I happen to have been training since I was a teenager.

Quote:

Lol.. Again these techniques are illegal in most if not all MMA venues. That’s why you don't see them....not because they don't work...

Illegal you do know the definition of illegal,,,right? You do understand that most Aiki jujtsu is found to be illegal in MMA…Right?




Do you know the definition of condescending butthole?

Here are some basic rules:
Quote:

Butting with the head.
2. Eye gouging of any kind.
3. Biting.
4. Hair pulling.
5. Fish hooking.
6. Groin attacks of any kind.
7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
8. Small joint manipulation.
9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
13. Grabbing the clavicle.
14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
16. Stomping a grounded opponent.
17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
21. Spitting at an opponent.
22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.
23. Holding the ropes or the fence.
24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area.
25. Attacking an opponent on or during the break.
26. Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee.
27. Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat.
28. Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee.
29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury.
30. Interference by the corner.
31. Throwing in the towel during competition.





I think #29 is your basic aikijutsu technique that's illegal.

Quote:

From here on out….
Anything posted in repley to my words I’m just going to copy and paste what I said above as my retort. Because I've stated what I know. Again its not what I believe. Its not what I seen on youtube or spike tv...but what I've experienced...





Great. Remain closeminded with your too deadly techniques, that'll help.
_________________________
The2nd ammendment, it makes all the others possible. <///<




Top
#407523 - 09/24/08 12:07 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: GansuKid]
Ames Offline
Veteran

Registered: 05/29/05
Posts: 1117
Quote:

Also its well known that Kano's top students (the one's who participated in the legendary match at the Tokyo Police Dept studied in Aiki-Jujutsu.




Is it well known? Not at all, no. As a matter of fact it's never been proven. This is really a hypothesis some have made with little evidence to back it up. Saigo Shiro may have learned something from his father, but no one knows what. In any case, him learning Daito Ryu at 16-17 years old is pretty unlikely.

Also, I'd advise you to keep an open mind on this forum. Please check your p.m.

--Chris


Edited by Ames (09/24/08 12:11 AM)
_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."
--Basho

Top
#407524 - 09/24/08 12:19 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: GansuKid]
Taison Offline
The Forum Dragon
Professional Poster

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 3629
Loc: BKK, Thailand
Gansu, here's a little info about me before you call me 'dumb'.

I'm a 1st Dan in both Judo and Japanese Jujutsu.

The way you assume about me, I'm going to treat you in the same manner. I think I know a lot better what an ippon seoi-nage is because unlike you, I've done that throw for 4 years, on average 20 times a day. How many have you?

Use of Japanese terms to make yourself look smart is just pathetic. Yes, I know what a shio nage is and frankly, it's a waste of time. I don't extend my arms out like that to let anyone grab my wrists. To get into the proper throw you expose your whole ribcage area~ A nice shovel hook or two will make a huge difference between a failure and success.

Quote:

because I can't find people in a MMA venue on youtube performing Aiki-jujutsu techniques therefore I'm full of it....?


Nope.

I see you saying you're doing this stuff against MMA people all the time, here's a little thing I got from Bullshido.com; Put up a video or it didn't happen.

Quote:

Anything posted in repley to my words I’m just going to copy and paste what I said above as my retort.


Because you lack the means to defend your point of view.

~Donnie
_________________________
I got two fists.. Don't make me use my head as well!

Top
#407525 - 09/24/08 11:20 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: BrianS]
everyone Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/02/07
Posts: 597
Loc: USA
Brian,

Where has the "too deadly" argument been hashed out and disproved?


There are several techniques that do not technically violate the rules but should never be used in competition. I don't think that it would be sporting if a competitor managed to get their opponent into a standing rear naked choke, then dropped to the ground (sprawling back)while maintaining the hold. Chances are that a broken neck would result. This is a simple example for illustration, but there are many techniques (sorry,I don't know Japanese terms) that cause serious permanent damage (or worse).

Michael

Top
#407526 - 09/24/08 11:42 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: everyone]
BrianS Offline
Higher rank than you
Professional Poster

Registered: 11/04/05
Posts: 5959
Loc: Northwest Arkansas
I was referring to techniques that cannot be trained because someone will get maimed or killed. Maybe,but if you can't train it, then how can it be useful?

There have been countless threads here on it.
_________________________
The2nd ammendment, it makes all the others possible. <///<




Top
#407527 - 09/24/08 12:30 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Taison]
butterfly Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 3012
Loc: Torrance, CA
Donnie,

Don't forget to add that these arts are addendums to your base art of MT, where you have a teaching certificate/instructor's license for the same given to you in Thailand where you learned and live.

If you're going to put your cards on the table, go ahead and lay some of the aces down too.

Top
#407528 - 09/24/08 01:25 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: BrianS]
everyone Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/02/07
Posts: 597
Loc: USA
Countless threads does not = proof

So if you can't train a technique to it's full potential, it's not useful? The above example was a technique I was taught in the Army. I can not practice it with full power and with a resisting opponent, so is it not useful? I can walk through the technique, practice parts of it with full commitment, release the hold as I drop, etc... But I would not use it in competition. So it's not useful? Is it proven that it is not a valid arguement to say some techniques are too dangerous to be used in competition? I know you know better. Maybe I we are just not understanding each other.

Top
#407529 - 09/24/08 01:37 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: everyone]
BrianS Offline
Higher rank than you
Professional Poster

Registered: 11/04/05
Posts: 5959
Loc: Northwest Arkansas
No, they are useful imo. It's just less likely to make them work in a pressured situation unless you can train it in a pressured situation.

I've questioned this in my goju training when I see a technique that will obviously hurt someone, if you can pull it off.
_________________________
The2nd ammendment, it makes all the others possible. <///<




Top
#407530 - 09/24/08 01:51 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: BrianS]
everyone Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/02/07
Posts: 597
Loc: USA
Most deadly or maiming techniques can be modified slightly or abandoned at some point in the execution as to not seriously hurt your training partner. You don't have to break an arm to know you could do it out of an arm-bar. IMO there is no question that the techniques will work as intended. At some point, you know you have it so you just release the pressure or abandon it for another technique to keep the sparring going. Anyway, I think we are in agreement.

Michael

Top
#407531 - 09/24/08 01:59 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: BrianS]
JMWcorwin Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 07/13/07
Posts: 731
Loc: SoCal, USA
BrianS,

Quote:

I think #29 is your basic aikijutsu technique that's illegal.




8. Small joint manipulation.
9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
13. Grabbing the clavicle.
16. Stomping a grounded opponent.
17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.


These are more the kinds of things that stick out to me that we train regularly which don't crossover to sport. #18 just happens to be our bread and butter. And yes, I have seen it done, nothing good for the uke in that technique. But even something as simple as hair pulling; it's a great way to control the head of your opponent. And, if you were in a real SD situation you don't think your attacker would refrain from doing that 'cuz it's not sporting'?

Not trying to bash your point of view here; I generally aggree with most of what you post. But, I think you're holding on to this one a little too tightly. Open up a little and look at the possibilities within those 31 rules... lots of bad stuff.



edit- and sorry, you're last post wasn't up when I started this one.


Edited by JMWcorwin (09/24/08 03:21 PM)
_________________________
There are no PERFECT techniques, only perfect execution for the situation at hand. ~Corwin

Top
#407532 - 09/24/08 02:05 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: JMWcorwin]
BrianS Offline
Higher rank than you
Professional Poster

Registered: 11/04/05
Posts: 5959
Loc: Northwest Arkansas
No problem JMW!!


everyone, I believe we are!
_________________________
The2nd ammendment, it makes all the others possible. <///<




Top
#407533 - 09/24/08 03:41 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Ames]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
Ames,

Is it possible that, as you say, "many facets of aikido are indeed workable in a MMA setting?" I don't know. To answer that question, I would have to know more about the fine details of aikido than I do.

What I can say is this: while MMA fighters borrow techniques and tactics from different martial arts, the number of arts most MMA fighters borrow from is relatively small. Basically, the mix seems to be boxing, Muay Thai, and some form (or forms) or wrestling. What boxing, Muay Thai and wrestling all have in common is they feature tons of so-called "alive" training--i.e. training against actively resisting opponenets under realistic conditions.

And I strongly disagree with your view that a practioner of BJJ would be just as ill-suited to MMA as an aikido practioner. BJJ, whatever its limitations, is far better grounded in the hard, blood-and-sweat realities of fighting than aikido currently is.

Top
#407534 - 09/24/08 03:56 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
everyone Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/02/07
Posts: 597
Loc: USA
fileboy,

I think you are right in that Aikido doesn't transfer well into sport. At least not as well as BJJ. For self-defense application, I could not say with the same certainty.

Michael

Top
#407535 - 09/24/08 04:35 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Taison]
GansuKid Offline
Member

Registered: 03/20/08
Posts: 36
Edited by Ames: As I stated these kind of personal attacks, and general troll behavior will not be tolerated.



Edited by Ames (09/24/08 05:57 PM)

Top
#407536 - 09/24/08 04:51 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: GansuKid]
student_of_life Offline
Veteran

Registered: 10/12/05
Posts: 1032
Loc: Newfoundland, Canada
a 42 year old kid eh? niiiice.

"This conversation is over from where I stand"
then why did you go on to type another paragraph and a bit that turned out to be a flame?

"the nonsense your trying to sell."
non sense? in the entire post you quoted from Donnie, please show me where the nonsense is.

"no matter what you say I’ll come back with the same stuff I stated before"
this is the crux of internet "discussion", you can choose to ignore what's being said in favor of running your virtural mouth and flashing your credentials. this is not a pissing contest, you want to have a dicsussion, then talk, please. if you want to mock people, you will be told, over and over again.
_________________________
its not supposed to make sense

Top
#407537 - 09/24/08 04:57 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: BrianS]
GansuKid Offline
Member

Registered: 03/20/08
Posts: 36
Edited by Ames in a hopeful attempt to keep the conversation topical/civil/interesting.



Edited by Ames (09/24/08 05:56 PM)

Top
#407538 - 09/24/08 05:54 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: GansuKid]
Ames Offline
Veteran

Registered: 05/29/05
Posts: 1117
Gansukid, I've warned via p.m. regarding personal/art based attacks. Consider this your final warning. I will ban you if you continue.
_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."
--Basho

Top
#407539 - 09/24/08 10:48 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Taison]
tomh777 Offline
Member

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 114
Loc: Metro Detroit
Quote:



here's a little thing I got from Bullshido.com; Put up a video or it didn't happen.





Absolutely good advice!!! Regardless of whether your pro MMA pro TMA or some combination thereof, all this bantering back and forth about which art will or will not work is purely theoretical. Even if any individual poster's viewpoint is "true", without hard evidence (such as youtube, acccurate historical documents, etc, it is nothing more than theories, opinions, and conjecture.

Top
#407540 - 09/24/08 11:02 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: tomh777]
tomh777 Offline
Member

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 114
Loc: Metro Detroit
With the idea of "hard evidence" in mind, since some people have complained that one of the reason aikido can't work in an MMA setting is because of the rules that limit the usage of certain techniques, I'm curious if there's any record of aikido/aiki jutsu folks competing in No Holds Barred competitions prior to the advent of MMA? If so, what were the results?

Thanks

Top
#407541 - 09/25/08 02:04 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: tomh777]
Taison Offline
The Forum Dragon
Professional Poster

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 3629
Loc: BKK, Thailand
Exactly,

What were the results?

You could say "if I set fire to grass, I'll burn down the whole forest", and it's quite logical, but is it actually possible to set fire to green grass?

~Donnie
_________________________
I got two fists.. Don't make me use my head as well!

Top
#407542 - 09/25/08 03:05 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Taison]
Ames Offline
Veteran

Registered: 05/29/05
Posts: 1117
Taison, care to elaborate?
_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."
--Basho

Top
#407543 - 09/25/08 03:11 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Ames]
Taison Offline
The Forum Dragon
Professional Poster

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 3629
Loc: BKK, Thailand
What I meant, in the context of 'dangerous' techniques, it is quite simple for these so called 'super aikido-ka' to state that their techniques are dangerous however has there ever been any record of someone actually having some results in the MMA format?

Theory is theory. There will always be too many variables to make everything work accordingly. That's what these 'super aikidoka' do; they say they could do this, do that, break a neck, grab the throat, etc etc, yet they never do it. Do they even know if it would work at all? It sounds logical but in practice it may be not?

Green grass doesn't catch fire btw.

~Donnie
_________________________
I got two fists.. Don't make me use my head as well!

Top
#407544 - 09/25/08 03:30 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Taison]
Ames Offline
Veteran

Registered: 05/29/05
Posts: 1117
Quote:

Theory is theory. There will always be too many variables to make everything work accordingly. That's what these 'super aikidoka' do; they say they could do this, do that, break a neck, grab the throat, etc etc, yet they never do it. Do they even know if it would work at all? It sounds logical but in practice it may be not?





But in that video I posted there were two techniques that are exactly like those done regularly in Aikido.

This is the point I would really love someone to speak to:

Yes, Aikido's methodology would need to be changed for it to be sucessful in MMA.

Now tell me one art that has'nt had to alter its methodology in order to compete in MMA.

I don't really see how having to alter its methodology to become competetive invalidates Aikido as its taught now. It only means that so far no one who practices it has wanted to compete. Which also doesn't necesesarly mean they haven't competed out of fear or whatever either. Perhap's they are just happy with studying the art for what it is.

What I can't get is why MMA practioners aren't looking at arts like Aikido or Classical Jujutsu for new techniques to bring to the ring (although I have my theories).



--Chris
_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."
--Basho

Top
#407545 - 09/25/08 04:01 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Ames]
Taison Offline
The Forum Dragon
Professional Poster

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 3629
Loc: BKK, Thailand
No Chris, you're getting me wrong here.

I'm not talking about Aikido as a whole, i'm talking about these 'super aikidoka' like, excuse my example, WT or Gansu who claim to have fought with lots of other styles and beaten them using ONLY Aikido yet they don't compete in any type of MMA format saying it's too dangerous for their opponents. Why?

When I practice Jujutsu, i don't do randori or anything. I go through theories, techniques, techique refinement and technique development. This is pretty much the same what an everyday aikidoka do in their own dojos.

However, I don't claim I've beaten anyone using jujutsu exclusively, and if I have, I'd have it on film not for just evidence, but also future reference. However, most of these 'super aikidoka' who've claimed to walk into various judo dojos and thrown all of their members around like ragdolls while blindfolded, rarely or better, never have any type of record of it, at least in motion picture like video.

I'm not bashing Aikido for not being effective in MMA format, it wasn't designed to and I've noticed there's a lack in ambition to do so. However, I've just seen and talked to too many 'super aikidoka' who claim they could compete and beat anyone in an MMA format easily using Aikido exclusively.

Another thing I'm tired of is 'too dangerous'. Either it means they're unable to control their own technique, or just an empty excuse based on theory and 'day dreaming'.

~Donnie
_________________________
I got two fists.. Don't make me use my head as well!

Top
#407546 - 09/25/08 04:42 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Taison]
Ames Offline
Veteran

Registered: 05/29/05
Posts: 1117
Alright Taison, thanks for the clarification.

Quote:

I'm not bashing Aikido for not being effective in MMA format, it wasn't designed to and I've noticed there's a lack in ambition to do so. However, I've just seen and talked to too many 'super aikidoka' who claim they could compete and beat anyone in an MMA format easily using Aikido exclusively.





I agree that this a big problem in Aikido. I've seen others, and myself have been, shunned for studying another art!

Quote:

Another thing I'm tired of is 'too dangerous'. Either it means they're unable to control their own technique, or just an empty excuse based on theory and 'day dreaming'.





I'm getting tired of this one too. But I still think it has some merit. The fact is some techniques,
such as those in Daito Ryu, are too dangerous to use. They really do maim quickly. However luckly there's a safer 'version' of Daito Ryu out there: AIkido. O'Sensei apparently made Daito Ryu techniques less dangerous, so I don't see why they couldn't be made to function with a greater degree of regularity in a sporting environment. Even still, the potential for injury would be pretty big until all the atheletes 'caught up', (sort of how the potential danger of a ground submission has been reigned in because now people are knowledgable about when to tap).

--Chris
_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."
--Basho

Top
#407547 - 09/25/08 04:42 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Taison]
eyrie Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 12/28/04
Posts: 3106
Loc: QLD, Australia
To be fair to WT, he's in his 60's...

BTW, grass grows out from old growth, which dies out and forms a dense bottom layer of combustible mulch. You really need to see an Aussie bushfire... and how fast it can spread.

Look, the reverse argument can be made about the transition from jujitsu to judo - that the more dangerous techniques were relegated to kata form in order to preserve them, whilst the majority of techniques were modified in such a way as to allow them to be practiced full-on with more resistance.

Aikido techniques were designed for very similar reasons - so that they can be practiced full-on in circumstances where someone is really trying to hit you. If you discount uke's response, which you must, to appreciate the training format, it's not going to look like the dance choreography that has become synonymous with aikido in general. You only have to look at Tomiki-ryu/Shodokan shiai to see what that looks like. Even so, at the higher levels of skills within Tomiki shiai, it looks like something out of a Seagal movie. For example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXCPE9YR5jA and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvfyvQIJiGo. These were taken during actual tanto shiai matches.

Anything can be adapted to conform within specific sportive rules, and it must, in order to adhere to the ideals of sportsmanship and participant safety - just as dojo techniques are almost always modified and adapted for general training purposes.

You can't look at dojo technique and assume that such things can be applied in the same manner and format under training circumstances, to sportive engagements, to situations where you are physically threatened. The circumstances are entirely different for each of those scenarios. In a sportive engagement, there is some level of expectation of "fair play", or at least "playing within the rules", on both sides. And anyone who thinks that stuff they learn in a dojo can be applied in other venues without situational adaptation is just as deluded as those who think that "dojo technique" is the defining aspect of any art.


Edited by eyrie (09/25/08 04:43 AM)

Top
#407548 - 09/25/08 01:11 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: everyone]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
everyone,

I doubt any martial art unsuitable for MMA competitions has much chance of being a practical self-defense art. I realize many people will see this as an extreme view.

No, MMA competitions are not the same as real fights. However, they are as close as we are ever likely to get, within the bounds of saftey and sanity. If you can't make it work there, it probably won't work onm the street, either.

Top
#407549 - 09/25/08 01:52 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
everyone Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/02/07
Posts: 597
Loc: USA
fileboy,

I agree that a martial art that functions well in mma will likely function well in self defense. Where we disagree is that I believe a ma that is not suited for mma competiton may function very well in self defense. I can't prove either belief. I'm sure there are people who would testify that Aikido saved them in a self-defense situation (but thats not proof). In any case, I understand your position and respect your conclusion (I just don't agree).

Michael

Top
#407550 - 09/25/08 04:42 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: everyone]
BrianS Offline
Higher rank than you
Professional Poster

Registered: 11/04/05
Posts: 5959
Loc: Northwest Arkansas
Quote:

fileboy,

I agree that a martial art that functions well in mma will likely function well in self defense. Where we disagree is that I believe a ma that is not suited for mma competiton may function very well in self defense. I can't prove either belief. I'm sure there are people who would testify that Aikido saved them in a self-defense situation (but thats not proof). In any case, I understand your position and respect your conclusion (I just don't agree).

Michael




I agree. I also don't believe the whole idea of "if it ain't on video, it didn't happen" either. I think that's a closeminded view. There have been some amazing things happen during ma classes that I can't duplicate,but aren't on video. It's kinda hard to recreate the exact same scenario.

Haven't you ever had a "whoah, crap, how did that happen" moment?
_________________________
The2nd ammendment, it makes all the others possible. <///<




Top
#407551 - 09/25/08 06:38 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: BrianS]
tomh777 Offline
Member

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 114
Loc: Metro Detroit
Quote:



I also don't believe the whole idea of "if it ain't on video, it didn't happen" either. I think that's a closeminded view. There have been some amazing things happen during ma classes that I can't duplicate,but aren't on video. It's kinda hard to recreate the exact same scenario.





I don't find that viewpoint to be close minded. I simply see it as an attempt to add some objectivity to the debate. If the debate is to discuss how effective a given martial art is in general (as opposed to those ocassional aha experiences that happen sporadically and unpredictibly) then having some sort of quasi objective measure (such as youtube) levels the playing field of debate.

That's all.

Top
#407552 - 09/28/08 05:24 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Taison]
GansuKid Offline
Member

Registered: 03/20/08
Posts: 36
Quote:

No Chris, you're getting me wrong here.

I'm not talking about Aikido as a whole, i'm talking about these 'super aikidoka' like, excuse my example, WT or Gansu who claim to have fought with lots of other styles and beaten them using ONLY Aikido yet they don't compete in any type of MMA format saying it's too dangerous for their opponents. Why?

When I practice Jujutsu, i don't do randori or anything. I go through theories, techniques, techique refinement and technique development. This is pretty much the same what an everyday aikidoka do in their own dojos.

However, I don't claim I've beaten anyone using jujutsu exclusively, and if I have, I'd have it on film not for just evidence, but also future reference. However, most of these 'super aikidoka' who've claimed to walk into various judo dojos and thrown all of their members around like ragdolls while blindfolded, rarely or better, never have any type of record of it, at least in motion picture like video.

I'm not bashing Aikido for not being effective in MMA format, it wasn't designed to and I've noticed there's a lack in ambition to do so. However, I've just seen and talked to too many 'super aikidoka' who claim they could compete and beat anyone in an MMA format easily using Aikido exclusively.

Another thing I'm tired of is 'too dangerous'. Either it means they're unable to control their own technique, or just an empty excuse based on theory and 'day dreaming'.

~Donnie




If the moderator will permit me…… (at this point I don’t know…:0

No Taison I feel you attacked Aikido as a whole and that's how I took your posts…. I didn’t claim to use only Aikido …I’m a Hapkidoka which is all inclusive.

I never claimed to have fought “lots of other styles using only Aikido techniques” Where did you get that from my posts?

I stated...My dojang has MMA fighters, I stated I spar with them. (You can pm me I'll provide u my Dojang e-mail and you can check for yourself… What more proof do you want? Would u like to visit? Please do...)


I stated I would never use Aiki jujutsu techniques in a sporting match….because they are illegal in MMA.


I only stated that many Aiki jujutsu techniques were not pliable to sport. ….

IMO …You interpreted my words as saying Aikido was too dangerous for MMA and IMO....launched into an “A” typical diatribe against Aikido… ("A" typical, because its been tried so many times before...)

Hence…. I assumed (pardon me for doing so....) you didn’t know or have seen anyone with prowess employ Aiki jujutsu techniques ( I asked if you knew what a simple “four corner throw” was in Japanese ....Instead you stated you did jujitsu for 4 years…(which IMO isn’t a very long time….)

From where I stand….. IMO You tried to play “I’m an authority on what works and what doesn’t”

I’ll just leave it at that…I’ll check My Pm if you have any other questions you want to ask me….

Ok moderator.... I just stated that facts and My opinions....NO personal attacks...

If this is still trolling behavior...then by all means do ban me...


Edited by GansuKid (09/28/08 05:26 PM)

Top
#407553 - 09/29/08 07:41 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: GansuKid]
Taison Offline
The Forum Dragon
Professional Poster

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 3629
Loc: BKK, Thailand
Quote:

If this is still trolling behavior...then by all means do ban me...



Lol, You haven't violated anything. You're free to express your opinions, please by all means do.

No no, this is a healthy discussion imo.

Quote:

You tried to play “I’m an authority on what works and what doesn’t”


I apologize if I come across like that. What I tried to say was that I'm not unfamiliar with those techniques, no, just that I don't see them very practical in a real confrantation with lots of pressure.

Quote:

feel you attacked Aikido as a whole and that's how I took your posts


No no. I did not meant to bash Aikido, what I was trying to say was that the training method of Aikido wasn't designed to be used in any type of MMA format, yet many 'super-aikidoka' claim to be able to compete in there without showing real evidence.

Quote:

I assumed you didn’t know or have seen anyone with prowess employ Aiki jujutsu techniques


I know Motohiro Fukakusa, 7th dan Aikido.

Be right back to you there~
_________________________
I got two fists.. Don't make me use my head as well!

Top
#407554 - 09/29/08 09:08 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
Quote:

I think the real reason for kata is simple inertia. We do kata because our teachers tell us we should. They did kata because their teachers told them they should. And so, and so on. Some people call this preserving traditon; I call it a lack of critical thinking.




I agree that kata is practised out of ignorance by many. I agree that "hiding" information is idiotic and don't subscribe to this theory.

The "lack of critical thinking" stuff however... What does this say of me?

I happen to have a varied background. My old man could hit like a kicking mule and didn't have any time for "air punching" (I saw him knock people out with one punch - home invaders, rude guests). I persevered with tma because my karate teacher could hit much harder (in the sense of hurting - not just knocking me across the room).

What is kata for? Solo practise for grooving techniques - techniques that combat sports practitioners don't always appreciate (like the front snap kick) because they don't look powerful (see my article Visible force vs. applied force). Concepts like "kime" (focus) are not easily to explain and hard to learn. But effective they are, and they are grooved by kata practise.

[By the way, to answer your earlier question - front kicks with the heel are something I do a lot of. But they are no where near as useful as the front ball of foot kick. For one thing, heel kicks are not as easy to snap - ie. create hydrostatic shock. For another they don't have the same reach. As for toes... almost 30 years of hard sparring and I've only broken my toes 3 times. Scare me to death. Last time (2003) I just straightened them after the bout and fought on. I went to hospital afterwards for an x-ray and felt like a wuss, waiting in emergency with people who had real injuries.]

It is my theory that all kata were originally for 2 person practise (like judo kata). Since striking arts can be performed without a partner, solo kata practise became more prevalent; I will teach a 2 person form as a solo form initially (good for learning the sequence). By way of example, consider this video showing my brother and one of his seniors doing a 2 person form while the solo form is shown by another senior...

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=4jUiAafxswQ

Why have 2 person forms? Well, that's another story. You can read my lengthy article Muidokan embu. Suffice it to say that if you don't have some "formal" way of learning to apply techniques that are more complex than the tried and trusted jab, cross, hook etc. in a dynamic environment, you're not ever going to apply them properly (this is my experience). Experiment with a "live" opponent and you risk copping it sweet. As I said before, development is discouraged by hard sparring (as necessary as it might be generally). You need something for pure "learning". 2 person forms on the other hand are predictable, but they don't have to be without "resistance". What happens when you make a mistake? These 2 students have a long history of making good videos of this. Here is just one that I happen to have:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=g0JHD-M847c

Many tma practitioners can't apply their more complex techniques because they don't use 2 person forms, not because they have solo forms! They stress single person practice at the expense of 2 person practise. They train solo techniques then spar using what I call "faux boxing", never applying tma. I don't do this, nor do many traditional martial artists.
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407555 - 09/29/08 03:54 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
Dan,

I concede your point that kata can develop some useful skills, focus among them. However, I think these skills can be equally well developed in other ways more directly pertinent to self-defense skills. The key issue for me is time. We all have less time to train than we'd like, so it makes sense to use the time we have as efficiently as possible. Unless you really love kata for their own sake, focusing so much time and energy on them seems wasteful to me.

As for the front snap kick issue, I agree hitting with the ball of the foot increases range and can create a greater shock. However, hitting with the ball of the foot is pretty much impossible in a street fight since those usually break out while we are wearing shoes. The nearest we can do in that situation is kick with the toe. That will work fine if you consistently wear steel-toed shoes, but will result in broken bones if you don't.

Top
#407556 - 09/29/08 07:37 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
Normal shoes are fine - you don't need steel capped boots. If you've trained to hit with the ball of the foot you'll have the right foot shape to minimise the risk of injury.
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407557 - 09/30/08 01:36 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
BrianS Offline
Higher rank than you
Professional Poster

Registered: 11/04/05
Posts: 5959
Loc: Northwest Arkansas
Kata again? I don't feel the need to justify what I do. It's useful for me and if it's not your cup of tea then you are welcome to your opinion.

Kata cab be used effectively for whatever you think you can effectively use it for. There are other avenues,but to each their own.
_________________________
The2nd ammendment, it makes all the others possible. <///<




Top
#407558 - 09/30/08 10:37 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: BrianS]
iaibear Offline
Veteran

Registered: 08/24/05
Posts: 1304
Loc: upstate New York
Just thought of an analogy.

You are trying to learn a different language, say Spanish. Your teacher is fluent in Spanish, has spoken Castilian all his long life. When he speaks at normal speed.you try to make the same sounds he does. The words come out gibberish because you do not know either what they are or how they are made in the human mouth.

Gotta have the basics, words, phonetics before you can expect to make sentences that have any practicality.

Top
#407559 - 09/30/08 10:49 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: iaibear]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
xcept most ppl 2day think txt language is full on cool writing like words n stuff and is plenty practical and u dont need propa spelling or gramer or anything same with fighting you dont need that old stuff it doesnt work on my phone
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407560 - 09/30/08 01:14 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
Kicking with the ball of the foot in training changes the shape of your feet? Now that I have never heard before.

Top
#407561 - 09/30/08 04:14 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
everyone Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/02/07
Posts: 597
Loc: USA
FB,

I don't think he meant the shape of the foot would be changed. I read it as the foot would be positioned in the proper shape so it won't be injured.

Anyway...

There is no reason for using kata/forms in fighting styles that have relatively few and/or simple techniques (basic kicking and punching styles). For these types of arts, shadowboxing would suffice.

There are some very practical reasons I practice forms: remembering all the techniques; practicing all the techniques, even the ones that I rarely or never use (I may find a use or a student of mine might favor); working on the fine details of the techniques (so when the movements are compressed for application, the subtleties are not lost); building fluid motion and muscle memory.

I don't spend much of my class training time doing forms/kata. It is something I can do on my own. When I am in class, and have training partners, it’s application time (although I have to learn the form in class and demo it for my teacher, every once in a while, to maintain proper form).

I would expect this is how most train, but I don't know, maybe we should take a poll.

Michael

Top
#407562 - 09/30/08 04:50 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: everyone]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
Well, I would challenge anyone to put on a pair of shoes and try hitting squarely with the ball of the foot. Sorry, I just don't see how it is possible.

As for your reasons for practicing kata, I have a question: if movements need to be "compressed for application," what is the point of performing them in any other way? Wouldn't it be wiser to practice techniques in as close a manner as possible to actual application?

Top
#407563 - 09/30/08 05:29 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
everyone Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/02/07
Posts: 597
Loc: USA
FB,

Good question. IMO, if a person starts with the smaller movements, they will have a very difficult time assimilating some of the finer details of a movement. Under stress, movements tend to naturally compress. If you start with small movements, the subtleties tend to disappear.

For example a circle block may be practiced regularly with a large loopy circle. The circular force of the block allows the practitioner a simpler grab of an incoming attack. If applied as practiced however, it may be too slow to make work in a live environment. If instead the practitioner just practiced grabbing an incoming attack, chances are they would not have built in the circular motion that makes the grab feasible (or it would go away under pressure).

Kata/Forms is just another tool to use for developing martial skills. It’s very effective but is not the only way a person should be training (and I don’t believe anyone is suggesting that).

Michael

Top
#407564 - 09/30/08 07:43 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
Quote:

Well, I would challenge anyone to put on a pair of shoes and try hitting squarely with the ball of the foot. Sorry, I just don't see how it is possible.




This isn't theory. I do it all the time. On gashuku (our 7 day survival camps) we train in the wilderness - with shoes. We kick shields and bags. We kick each other. I much prefer kicking with shoes. If you hit at the right angle your foot is compressed into the right shape as far as necessary.

Quote:

As for your reasons for practicing kata, I have a question: if movements need to be "compressed for application," what is the point of performing them in any other way? Wouldn't it be wiser to practice techniques in as close a manner as possible to actual application?




The concept that the combat movement is different from the kata form is not one I adhere to. My cross-referencing with the Chinese internal arts (which have a long tradition of real combat application pre Cultural Revolution) reveals to me that kata applications should actually look very much like the move - not some outlandish derivation. If they don't there's a good chance your art has been diluted.

Having said that, some kata moves are clearly compromises between 2 or 3 very similar moves (so you don't have to repeat). And some moves are 'larger' - with good reason; this raises an entire kinaesthetic issue of how you 'wire' your brain during practise. An analogy would be that when you break boards you think of punching a target past the boards. You might never reach that target, but you achieve your goal of breaking the boards. So kata moves are sometimes larger to ensure your movement is not effected in a truncated fashion when you encounter resistance. The seiyunchin embu (2 person form) I sent you is a case in point; have a look at the single person movement and note how it actually corresponds exactly (given some small compromise or 'enlargement') with the combat version.
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407565 - 09/30/08 07:46 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
Quote:

Kicking with the ball of the foot in training changes the shape of your feet? Now that I have never heard before.




Whoever said that? You'll know how to effect the right foot shape for impact if you train correctly (just as one should learn how to make a correct fist for punching). Your actual foot won't change.
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407566 - 10/01/08 01:31 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
BrianS Offline
Higher rank than you
Professional Poster

Registered: 11/04/05
Posts: 5959
Loc: Northwest Arkansas
Quote:

xcept most ppl 2day think txt language is full on cool writing like words n stuff and is plenty practical and u dont need propa spelling or gramer or anything same with fighting you dont need that old stuff it doesnt work on my phone




_________________________
The2nd ammendment, it makes all the others possible. <///<




Top
#407567 - 10/01/08 10:10 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
everyone Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/02/07
Posts: 597
Loc: USA
Quote:

The concept that the combat movement is different from the kata form is not one I adhere to. My cross-referencing with the Chinese internal arts (which have a long tradition of real combat application pre Cultural Revolution) reveals to me that kata applications should actually look very much like the move - not some outlandish derivation. If they don't there's a good chance your art has been diluted.




There is a reason martial arts styles look alike when applied against resistance. IMO they still have their stylistic differences but the movements become more difficult to detect when the movements are compressed for application. There are some exceptions to this rule, but I have seen very few.

If you have recorded a sparring session where you are shifting from posture to posture like in a form/kata, I would very much like to see it. (or if you can find an example of this type of movement in a live environment on yuoutube). The full movements in the forms/kata's work ok for demo's, just not when it counts. But that's ok because a persons natural tendancies will be to compress the movements whe the # hits the fan. (unless the practicioner is such a purist that they train this instinct out of themselves)


Top
#407568 - 10/01/08 10:44 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: everyone]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
I don't shift from basic posture to basic posture. But I do shift. As you say, the moves are "compressed" (I prefer "abbreviated" or "smaller"). I don't see them as different moves though; rather they are part of a continuum.

The seiyuchin embu to which I refer is a case in point. Our sparring looks very much like that seiyuchin embu. The solo performance of the embu is much like the kata (sequentially a bit different). The 2 person fight looks like a brawl. Yet I get the same feeling doing the 2 person and single person forms; they have the same "yi" (mind/intent). I'm not terribly worried about the variation in the "xing" (form).

I believe that it is only when you go through this process of applying kata as fluid, dynamic 2 person forms that you understand the nexus between the formal solo technique and their application - that they are one and the same despite the apparent difference.

[In the seiyunchin embu video you'll see the solo performer gradually moving through the sequence (you only see a few moves, but you get the idea). The 2 person performers are going through the sequence, adding one more technique at at a time. Eventually the sequence becomes circular (both sides rotate through each other's "roles").]
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407569 - 10/01/08 11:19 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
everyone Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/02/07
Posts: 597
Loc: USA
Dan,

I think we are just using different terms to describe the same concept. Call it compressed techniques, smaller or abbreviated. The technique doesn’t change but the subtleties are more difficult to detect by the casual observer.

I think that many, like fileboy, want to jump right to the application without the benefit of forms/kata training. Although this may be possible, I feel that the core movements would be lost, when under pressure, with this approach.

Michael

Top
#407570 - 10/01/08 11:27 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
iaibear Offline
Veteran

Registered: 08/24/05
Posts: 1304
Loc: upstate New York
Quote:

As for your reasons for practicing kata, I have a question: if movements need to be "compressed for application," what is the point of performing them in any other way? Wouldn't it be wiser to practice techniques in as close a manner as possible to actual application?




"Do it slow. GET IT RIGHT. Speed will come." old sensei's saying.


Top
#407571 - 10/01/08 12:30 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
Ames Offline
Veteran

Registered: 05/29/05
Posts: 1117
Quote:

The concept that the combat movement is different from the kata form is not one I adhere to. My cross-referencing with the Chinese internal arts (which have a long tradition of real combat application pre Cultural Revolution) reveals to me that kata applications should actually look very much like the move - not some outlandish derivation. If they don't there's a good chance your art has been diluted.






I may not be entirely sure what you mean by "outlandish derivation", so I may just be misinterpreting your post. That being said, I agree that many Chinese forms can be made directly applicable to the 'actual move'. However, I've noticed that these are still interpretations. Taiji, for example seems to be a largely a grappling art; yet most of the 'drrect applications' I've seen over the years display it as a striking one! I think that in the IMA there is still a wide division between how a technique looks when practiced in the form and how it looks when used in a more 'alive' situation.

Take this for example.

Here is the Wu style Taiji form being practiced:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZpuC6hWZy4

Now here are the applications, as practiced at the Wu family headquarters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUf1llA3HXg

It seems that the applications, though they resemble the form, are mostly 'conceptual'. In other words, the form trains a concept and displays it's ideal application. Actual application is often less than ideal, but usually perfectly functional.

--Chris
_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."
--Basho

Top
#407572 - 10/01/08 07:02 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Ames]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
To me an derivation is "outlandish" if it moves away from the core concept or "yi". This is a matter of degree but will account for some of what fileboy has seen.
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407573 - 10/02/08 10:53 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
iaibear Offline
Veteran

Registered: 08/24/05
Posts: 1304
Loc: upstate New York
Quote:

xcept most ppl 2day think txt language is full on cool writing like words n stuff and is plenty practical and u dont need propa spelling or gramer or anything same with fighting you dont need that old stuff it doesnt work on my phone



Cool, man, but don't try to apply for a job with that smack on your resume.
Aikido is smooth and flowing and, done right, a bit faster than the untrained eye can follow. No way would someone my age, or even twenty years younger, be able to learn a series of moves from watching them done full speed by experts.
Do it slow, get it right, speed will come.

Top
#407574 - 10/02/08 11:07 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: iaibear]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
noway man your not gunna convince me cause ive lernt heaps from youtube i just leart some cool moves who needs slow stuff man it sux
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407575 - 10/04/08 01:15 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: everyone]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
everyone,

You have given me a coherent, textbook explanation of why MA techniques are practiced differently than they are applied. I have been hearing such explanations for a quarter century, and I don't buy them. A circle block is, in my opinion, an example of a technique with virtually no practical value. In fact, I think 99% of TKD blocks have no practical value. If TKD was practiced under even remotely realistic conditions, these kinds of technques would have been dumped long ago.

Top
#407576 - 10/04/08 08:44 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
Yet I apply 'circle blocks' (hiki uke) very successfully in hard and fast sparring.

What you see seem to be using as your framework for understanding tma is the plethora of shallow suburban McDojo or diluted competition forms. Your arguments re front kicks suggest to me that you have never fought or trained with a tma who could apply his/her techniques correctly. Granted, this is almost certainly because traditional techniques take a great deal longer to learn. But work, they do.

Tma are, in many ways, spectacularly unsuitable for popularisation; they require a high level of fine motor skill and hence years of study. In this context I am not in the least surprised to see that what people popularly regard as tma is so heavily diluted; it contains the general macro movements without any understanding of the details that make it work.

Then you get 'well-intentioned' revisions that lead the technique further astray and still only 'sort of' work - ITF sine wave is just one such revision of what was originally a functional method of Southern Chinese/Okinawan stepping training.

I must stress that I am not impugning the skill of those who do ITF; I just don't believe 'sine wave' value-adds one iota.

Whether it be blocks, stepping or front kicks; a missing detail renders a 'racehorse' lame, whereupon the poor beast is redesigned as a camel - and is never brought out to race anyway...


Edited by dandjurdjevic (10/04/08 09:31 PM)

Top
#407577 - 10/05/08 09:39 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
Dan,

The TKD I learned was hardly "diluted." I stuided ITF style TKD under the late Han Cha Kyo, a member of General Choi's original TKD demonstration team. He ran a dojang just off Devon Ave (the neighborhood where I grew up) on Chicago's far north side. Han's TKD was about as traditional as it gets.

Top
#407578 - 10/05/08 10:23 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: fileboy2002]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
I admire TKD practitioners, but they don't apply any circle blocks in the way they were designed. Nor does the karate style from which TKD is descended (shotokan). I also admire practitioners of that style. There are good points to both arts, but knowledge about how to apply the circle block (or any other block) is largely absent from them. I apply my blocks - I don't just practise them in the air, then go about doing something entirely different.

So the lineage of what you studied doesn't change my view one iota in relation to the "dilution" of certain techniques such as "circle blocks" (even if there is much to admire in those styles and their practitioners can be very effective in their own way).

Put another way, they are effective despite the misapplication of "circle blocks" etc. They have evolved other ways of dealing with attacks. The "circle blocks" and other blocks they do in the air/patterns have largely zero application in their sparring (if you doubt me, ask a TKD or shotokan practitioner when he/she last applied any sword hand or rising block in sparring). We apply traditional techniques.

Dilution has a long history - within China (in the internal arts as they became progressively more esoteric and less practical and in Shaolin as they became more dance-like) and then to Okinawa, then to Japan, then to Korea and now to the West. This has greatly accelerated since the attempt to "popularise" what was never meant to be popular.

Arts have evolved other ways of dealing with problems brought by this dilution (including my own karate) but techniques still hang around in forms in their diluted, unused form. I've made it my business to research and apply traditional techniques. I probably don't have it "right" (lots of people disagree with my conclusions) but no one can accuse me of being anything other than thorough in my research and scientific in my analysis.


Edited by dandjurdjevic (10/05/08 10:31 PM)
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407579 - 10/05/08 11:12 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
I should make it clear that I acknowledge that all traditional arts (including my own) have become diluted through popularisation and too little "live" application.

Faced with this one can either -
(a) ditch all the traditional techniques as worthless; or
(b) research why they aren't working and apply them.

As I've said, I have my own views on how the techniques should look. I can and do apply them in hard and fast sparring, so I can't be entirely wrong.

Invariably many of my contemporaries have come to similar conclusions (sometimes different but not in any dramatic sense) - be they in shotokan, tkd, aikido, wing chun etc.

We have found that they work - usually with a minor detail or in a certain context. Remove a link in the chain and it no longer works in a live environment. (See my article "Why blocks DO work" for an example of my argument on "circle" and other blocks.)
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407580 - 10/06/08 01:41 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
everyone Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/02/07
Posts: 597
Loc: USA
Fileboy,

You had practiced TKD for many years. I'm sure you were trained using traditional drills and techniques. Now you may not feel that these were important. Your skills are to the point of refinement where you no longer practice the full movements. But without your traditional foundation, you may never have developed the application skills you now command. You may think that there is a shortcut, but that's just theory.

Michael

Top
#407581 - 10/06/08 08:51 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: everyone]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
I agree absolutely Michael.
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407582 - 10/07/08 11:33 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: everyone]
butterfly Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 3012
Loc: Torrance, CA
Everyone,

I think the reverse could be said as well. That functional skills have been developed sans any foundational background in traditional arts which first begs the question of training traditionally to get realistic use.

Further, that when you dump those vetted in traditional systems and place them into environments where the conceit is not to fight folks the same way who have similar traditional training, it seems that much of the tradition goes out the window in use, or doesn't bear much fruit in the fight.

One can say that a hip chambered punch has many rewards when trained traditionally, yet in full contact, open competitions allowing either kickboxing rules or stand-up to ground, I have yet to see one applied. But of course, it doesn't mean that either of the competitors doesn't have to use this traditional technique. Only, if you accomodate it, then you open up your head for someone else's fist. So again, it begs the question of training something a particular way that you wouldn't apply the way you train it when used against people who are margingally trained in less tradtional formats.

Top
#407583 - 10/07/08 12:06 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: butterfly]
everyone Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/02/07
Posts: 597
Loc: USA
Butterfly,

I think burried in this long thread we covered this before. Simple kicking/punching styles, IMO, don't really need the same training process. However, they do have their own drills to develop skills that also may not be practiced like they are applied (like hitting a speed bag).

The TMA use large movements to train complicated subtlties they will use in application. I would never expect to chamber a fist to my hip in a fight, but training that way teaches some valuable principles. The principles from chambering a punch initially teach a student propper form for a punch and working both arms individually. Eventually that same motion can be modified for blocks and even throws.

TMA has received a reputation for being ineffective only because many do not get past the beginner stage of learning the principles. Once the principles are incorporated into application, the advantage is in the details.

It takes much longer to learn TMA than to go right into application. IMO, it is well worth the extra time in perfecting the details. People can learn to fight well without TMA. I feel they would be better had they started with a TMA.

Michael

Top
#407584 - 10/07/08 12:55 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: everyone]
butterfly Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 3012
Loc: Torrance, CA
Quote:

People can learn to fight well without TMA. I feel they would be better had they started with a TMA.





Michael, I guess this is where we disagree and I think there's very little proof in your contentions, since there are still those who train effectively without the traditional aspect in theirs, even if you think they would be better served with a different foundation.

I have personally known traditionalists to drop their training and pursue more modern ways for practicing effective use of their techniques (kickboxing, MT, boxing, BJJ and MMAs). I have yet to see the reverse. And yet these former traditionally trained martial artists may not have all the abilities that the exclusively modern trained fighters keep in their bags.

BTW, I am half-way between traditional and non-traditional and I have no problems with how one chooses to train. Not all my training is based on the most effective routes to fighting. Yet when questions of effective and efficient training are brought up, I think one can wend a way through this tangle of training paradigms and look outside the constraints of traditional or non-traditional and focus either on functional or non-functional practices. And there is overlap. However, the questions should be what makes a technique functional? What training produces this functionality and how best to teach this?

Top
#407585 - 10/07/08 01:19 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: butterfly]
MattJ Offline
Free Rhinoplasty!
Prolific

Registered: 11/25/04
Posts: 15634
Loc: York PA. USA
Nice post, Brad. Mirrors my experience for the most part.
_________________________
"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Top
#407586 - 10/09/08 09:42 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: butterfly]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
Quote:

One can say that a hip chambered punch has many rewards when trained traditionally, yet in full contact, open competitions allowing either kickboxing rules or stand-up to ground, I have yet to see one applied. But of course, it doesn't mean that either of the competitors doesn't have to use this traditional technique. Only, if you accomodate it, then you open up your head for someone else's fist.




Eh? Freeze the frames in any ring sport like boxing, kickboxing or MMA and you'll see loads of chambers - not necessarily right at the hip, but anywhere along the arc from the hip to the ear. These are all variations on the same theme.

Consider just a few images I've frozen from 2 or so randomly chosen fights in my article Chambering punches.

I recently had someone tell me that these were examples of "bad technique". What nonsense. They are examples of necessary human biomechanics. You can't get any power out of a punch unless you load it somehow - be it by chambering or by swinging. Both leave openings, but then again every attack leaves an opening. How and when you load for a punch or kick is called timing. Without loading you'd be walking around with stiff legs and arms doing pathetic little jabs.

Quote:

So again, it begs the question of training something a particular way that you wouldn't apply the way you train it when used against people who are margingally trained in less tradtional formats.




This assumes a lot. For a start it assumes that the combat sports equivalent of karate "air techniques" - shadow boxing/combinations - is just like "applied fighting". Is it?

Consider the standard combinations used by boxers, kickboxers, MMA etc. Here is a typical example I watched just the other day in the aftermath of Kimbo's recent loss, noting 1:22 to 1:27:

Kimbo & Goldberg toe to toe

Note the short jabbing punches and compare them (honestly) with anything that actually happens in a ring fight. Note the hissing breathing with every technique and again, compare it (honestly) with what people really do in the ring.

"Ah yes," is the inevitable response, "but it is more like applied fighting than a kata". Indeed - a little. But hardly. I think that it is highly stylised. It's just that we are all more used to seeing this form of "stylised" shadow boxing than traditional Eastern forms of "air techniques". Both are "traditional" ways of isolating movements. Just like the speedball, a great part of a boxer's "air" training is nothing like "applied fighting" - it has more to do with tradition. It is a tradition we are so used to seeing that we are numbed to its disparity with applied fighting in the ring.

A boxer's "air techniques" will typically be smaller or abbreviated versions of what he/she does in a fight. A karateka's moves will typically be larger. Both are using the training to extract the "yi" or concept, not to literally follow the "xing" or form.
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407587 - 10/09/08 09:51 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: butterfly]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
Quote:

Michael, I guess this is where we disagree and I think there's very little proof in your contentions, since there are still those who train effectively without the traditional aspect in theirs, even if you think they would be better served with a different foundation.

I have personally known traditionalists to drop their training and pursue more modern ways for practicing effective use of their techniques (kickboxing, MT, boxing, BJJ and MMAs). I have yet to see the reverse.




I don't doubt the effectiveness of modern combat sports. But, like Michael, I believe that modern combat sport practitioners could profit from examining traditional techniques. I'm no slouch at boxing, but I value my traditional methodology. I just don't apply it literally.

I think the fact that you have "yet to see the reverse" is regrettable, but unsurprising, given how misunderstood traditional techniques are and how long they take to develop properly.

Techniques like traditional thrusting punches and snapping front kicks are practically ignored in favour of "swinging alternatives". The traditional techniques are practically lampooned as "ineffective". I disagree and I rely on my own experience in this regard.
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407588 - 10/09/08 11:38 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
butterfly Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 3012
Loc: Torrance, CA
Dan, we'll just have to agree to disagree on some things.

BTW, I have seen good front kicks that have literally lifted people off the ground and sent them backwards. My contentions aren't necessarily about techniques---and if you look at utility, they all seem to be filtered down to the same apparent look when done more-or-less in 'real' fights. And that's regardless of the arts the opponents trained when among equally adept individuals.

So, not denigrating traditional techniques per se. I am saying however that certain ways of training seem to exprss utility quicker and better. When individuals are placed in less stringent environments to showcase techniques, tradition seems less the requiste aspect of that training since function trumps form.

Top
#407589 - 10/09/08 08:29 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: butterfly]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
Well I don't necessarily disagree with what you say - I'm not sure however whether we agree on the degree to which "form" is trumped by "function". In my view there is so much disregard for form that this is counterproductive to function.

Consider the front kick: if it lifts you off the ground and sends you backwards then it has too much push. A traditional front kick shouldn't move you much at all but should instead drop you on the spot. This is knowledge about "form" that is all but lost amongst modern sports fighters. Consider Visible force vs. applied force.

This is knowledge that every good traditional martial artist has. Yet, due to misunderstanding and misconception (and the corresponding rush to disregard traditional form) it is dismissed as "not functional". Just because something doesn't look impressive doesn't mean it isn't effective. Quite the reverse.

Then you get arguments how a front kick is "chambered" and so "telegraphs" or is "slow". Yet if you examine frame by frame the speed of a "teep" you'll see just how much slower and more telegraphed it is. Yes - it creates more displacement, but it is just a bad front kick from an efficiency perspective. It results from trying to get displacement (perhaps because of training with the heavy bag or by trying to get your partner to "lift of the ground") rather than trying to create a hydrostatic shock.

So in summary, modern sports fighters would profit from examining traditional form rather than subscribing to what I consider are flawed assumptions and incomplete understanding.

Yes, traditonal form is highly "stylised". Yes, it cannot be applied literally. But too often the baby is thrown out with the bathwater.


Edited by dandjurdjevic (10/09/08 08:53 PM)
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407590 - 10/09/08 09:48 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
Of course, front kicks and thrust punches are just 2 traditional "forms" that are disregarded. What are erroneously called "blocks" are summarily dismissed - yet I have applied them in hard and fast sparring for almost 3 decades. Again, I don't use the entire basic movement; that is a basic drill to teach you the angle of attack/deflection and groove movement on the correct plane. But I apply the same principle in sparring. See Why blocks DO work.

Part of the problem with many traditional martial artists is that they fail to apply their techniques in a more dynamic / less formal way. The rigidly adhere to "form". This doesn't mean that the form is wrong or bad - just that it is being applied too literally or not being applied at all.

The traditional training methodology has a lot to answer for in this respect. I think a balance between traditional and modern can produce very good results.
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407591 - 10/10/08 03:43 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
butterfly Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 3012
Loc: Torrance, CA
Quote:

Of course, front kicks and thrust punches are just 2 traditional "forms" that are disregarded.




No, not quite "disregarded." I would choose different wording that didn't imply being ignored. I would say that these have less efficiency when trying to use them in a fight against fighters or more adept opponents.

Look at any karate tournament from point, to Kyokushin, to the more robust decendents of these in the K-1 Grand Prixs to kick boxing with MT rules. Round kicks are by far the most utilized. And there is a reason for that.

Thrust punches and front kicks all require stabalized platforms from which to throw them and a target that is in front of the technique's performer. In particular, the front kick also requires a requisite distance to be used effectively. Closing the gap by the opponent jams the kick. When you add lateral movement and have less success in closing off the ring or the movement of the attacker, the angled power of round kicks give the performer more options and, I believe a higher hit rate than front kicks with less chance of being in a compromised position if your fron kick fails to land.

In this case the sister of the front kick seems to be used more often--the pushing kick--which has a quicker delivery and is used to create distance and set up subsequent attacks, but not necessarily as an end to itself as a hard front kick is used.

Top
#407592 - 10/10/08 04:36 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: butterfly]
everyone Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/02/07
Posts: 597
Loc: USA
Sports are too often used as examples when evaluating the effectiveness of a technique, training method or style.

Boxers should not train kata, they should train boxing (using proven methods for boxing). TMA were not intended for sport use. Front kicks may not work best in sports but they work great for fighting. Jamming a front kick just turns it into a thrusting knee which is a great technique for setting up a throw. Of course, you can't do throws in kick-boxing...

MMA may be the closest thing a sport comes to actual fighting that TMA were designed for, but even that has it's many limitations.

IMO TMA is the best way to train for fighting. If a fighter can learn to stay within a set of rules (unlearn some trained responses), those same skills can be applied for sports like boxing, kickboxing, mma etc... But in my opinion if your goal is to do well in a sport, specialize in that sport and use the proven methods for that sport. If your goal is fighting, train in a TMA. There are cross-over skills for both focuses. But, being great at one will only make a person (at best) good at the other.

Top
#407593 - 10/10/08 04:50 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: everyone]
MattJ Offline
Free Rhinoplasty!
Prolific

Registered: 11/25/04
Posts: 15634
Loc: York PA. USA
Quote:

IMO TMA is the best way to train for fighting. If a fighter can learn to stay within a set of rules (unlearn some trained responses), those same skills can be applied for sports like boxing, kickboxing, mma etc...




Your opinion, but why?

Quote:

But in my opinion if your goal is to do well in a sport, specialize in that sport and use the proven methods for that sport. If your goal is fighting, train in a TMA. There are cross-over skills for both focuses. But, being great at one will only make a person (at best) good at the other.




Again, why do you say that? The fighting skills involved in sports like BJJ or MMA are just as real (some would say moreso) than what most get in TMA training. You seem to be implying some secret/hidden power or skillset in TMA that has not been shown to be real in any meaningful way.
_________________________
"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Top
#407594 - 10/10/08 05:04 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: MattJ]
everyone Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/02/07
Posts: 597
Loc: USA
It's my opinion because I see MMA as just TMA with rules. If you want to learn to fight without rules, study a TMA. If you want to get good at fighting within and with maximimum benefit of the rules, train in a sport.

Why would a person train exclusively in boxing if they wanted to fight MMA (less rules then boxing)? Why would someone train MMA if their goal was self-defense (no rules)?

A boxer may do well in MMA, and an MMA guy may do well in self-defense. But if your goal is only self-defense why train for a sport? (unless you just like the sport)

Top
#407595 - 10/10/08 07:08 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: butterfly]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
Quote:

I would say that these have less efficiency when trying to use them in a fight against fighters or more adept opponents.

Look at any karate tournament from point, to Kyokushin, to the more robust decendents of these in the K-1 Grand Prixs to kick boxing with MT rules. Round kicks are by far the most utilized. And there is a reason for that.




From my experience, the reason is an inadequate knowledge and appreciation of front kicks and other traditional techniques resulting from dilution. The front kick looks easy, but it is actually quite subtle. And it works in what I call the melee range - where sports fighters of all descriptions spend only fleeting, desperate moments.

Quote:

Thrust punches and front kicks all require stabalized platforms from which to throw them and a target that is in front of the technique's performer. In particular, the front kick also requires a requisite distance to be used effectively. Closing the gap by the opponent jams the kick. When you add lateral movement and have less success in closing off the ring or the movement of the attacker, the angled power of round kicks give the performer more options and, I believe a higher hit rate than front kicks with less chance of being in a compromised position if your fron kick fails to land.




This is where we disagree most fundamentally. I don't think most martial artists today practise in what I call the melee range where front kicks and thrust punches come into their own. I have had no difficulty applying them in a loose/live environment and neither have any of my contemporaries. For that matter try Higaonna's or Chinen's dojos etc.

Quote:

In this case the sister of the front kick seems to be used more often--the pushing kick--which has a quicker delivery and is used to create distance and set up subsequent attacks, but not necessarily as an end to itself as a hard front kick is used.




Quicker delivery? Yikes! In my opinion this is a misconception based on commonly accepted, but flawed analysis of human biomechanics (and assumptions based on the lack of front kicks in competition in the absence of particular, vital knowledge such as melee training). Compare video frames if you like. The snap generates much more speed than a leg lift. The "chamber" issue is a red herring in this regard - the snap lifts the leg faster counteracting any "speed benefit" of a straight leg lift (useless anyway).

In any event, both the teep even the teep requires a knee bend to produce a push. The "chamber" is the same. What is different is the distancing and penetration depth. Period. Oh - and the pushing kick is delivered much slower!


Edited by dandjurdjevic (10/10/08 07:35 PM)
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407596 - 10/10/08 11:25 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: everyone]
MattJ Offline
Free Rhinoplasty!
Prolific

Registered: 11/25/04
Posts: 15634
Loc: York PA. USA
Quote:

Why would a person train exclusively in boxing if they wanted to fight MMA (less rules then boxing)? Why would someone train MMA if their goal was self-defense (no rules)?

A boxer may do well in MMA, and an MMA guy may do well in self-defense. But if your goal is only self-defense why train for a sport? (unless you just like the sport)




Because those sports consistently develop functional skill for exactly the same thing that TMA is supposed to do - fighting. And does it quicker. There is virtually no functional difference between defending a punch from a MMA opponent or a punch from anyone else. The skill is the same.

Your argument rests on the dubious possibilty that non-practicable TMA skills would reliably be able to be implemented under pressure. Something that the early minimal-rules UFC's have shown to be unlikely.
_________________________
"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Top
#407597 - 10/13/08 11:45 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: MattJ]
Ames Offline
Veteran

Registered: 05/29/05
Posts: 1117
Quote:

Something that the early minimal-rules UFC's have shown to be unlikely.





Have they? What do you make of the fact that those early UFC's were highly stacked in the Gracie's favour? I mean something as simple as not having a Judo representative shows that.
_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."
--Basho

Top
#407598 - 10/13/08 11:52 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Ames]
MattJ Offline
Free Rhinoplasty!
Prolific

Registered: 11/25/04
Posts: 15634
Loc: York PA. USA
Quote:

Have they? What do you make of the fact that those early UFC's were highly stacked in the Gracie's favour? I mean something as simple as not having a Judo representative shows that.




Highly stacked? How do you figure? By allowing grappling at all? Strikers had very few restrictions - no fish-hooking, no eye gouges, no throat shots. That's about it from what I remember. I hardly call that "highly stacking" in the Gracie's favor.
_________________________
"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Top
#407599 - 10/13/08 12:00 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
butterfly Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 3012
Loc: Torrance, CA
Dan,

Quote:

From my experience, the reason is an inadequate knowledge and appreciation of front kicks and other traditional techniques resulting from dilution. The front kick looks easy, but it is actually quite subtle.




I will agree with you that I think the front kick is one of the hardest, if not the hardest kick to get down right. But there is still a problem with your anaylsis, I believe, and that is the conceit that the opponent is going to allow you to line up in front of him to apply the kick. We are just going to have to disagree here. In sparring with good, technical opponents, front kicks are used much less, not because people don't know how to do them, but simply they aren't allowed to do them when good defenses are applied; and this makes front kicks a less than optimal choice, generally, when sparring with lots of movement. Not to say you don't see them applied every once and awhile, just not as often as the round kick.

I would also reconsider this:

Quote:

the reason is an inadequate knowledge and appreciation of front kicks and other traditional techniques resulting from dilution.




Not to be too abrupt here, this is dismissive in some sense and patronizing in another since you are generalzing about a large group with whom you may have little to no truck, despite your experience.

Top
#407600 - 10/13/08 12:47 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: MattJ]
everyone Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/02/07
Posts: 597
Loc: USA
The early UFC fighters were still sport fighters. They may have had greater freedom of techniques but they could only execute what they practice.

If someones primary techniques are punching and kicking, no matter what style they practice or what targets they aim for, IMO they are sport focused. If someone squares off and starts to circle their opponent, IMO they are sport focused.

My experience leads me to believe that serious fighting techniques (TMA)come out of very close or clinch range (or ground). That is where the control is; where crippling (or worse) damage can be most easily inflicted.

If a skilled unethical TMA decides to fight in MMA without altering his techiniques, it would not take long before he would be banned from competition. The techniques to break a neck or throws that will dislocate someones knee may not be technically illegal but no one with a little morality would attempt it in competition.

You can't judge a TMA based upon what they can/have used in MMA any more then you can judge MMA based upon the standards of boxing. It would be like saying that MMA footwork doesn't work because you never see a boxer use it...

Top
#407601 - 10/13/08 01:03 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: everyone]
MattJ Offline
Free Rhinoplasty!
Prolific

Registered: 11/25/04
Posts: 15634
Loc: York PA. USA
Quote:

The early UFC fighters were still sport fighters. They may have had greater freedom of techniques but they could only execute what they practice.




What does that mean? Have you seen any of the early UFC's? Do you know that BJJ was developed as a street-fighting art in Brazil, and that the Gracies accepted many no-rules challenges before the UFC was ever brought about?

Quote:

If someones primary techniques are punching and kicking, no matter what style they practice or what targets they aim for, IMO they are sport focused. If someone squares off and starts to circle their opponent, IMO they are sport focused.




This......is garbage, sorry.

Quote:

My experience leads me to believe that serious fighting techniques (TMA)come out of very close or clinch range (or ground). That is where the control is; where crippling (or worse) damage can be most easily inflicted.




Again, have you seen any UFC's at all? MMA people specialze in clinch/ground.

Quote:

If a skilled unethical TMA decides to fight in MMA without altering his techiniques, it would not take long before he would be banned from competition. The techniques to break a neck or throws that will dislocate someones knee may not be technically illegal but no one with a little morality would attempt it in competition.




This is BS conjecture. This assumes that these super-duper TMA techniques will work flawlessly every time. A ridiculous point to argue from. And again, you are just plain wrong. Anyone that watched Dan Severn spike Anthony Macis on his head - twice - would understand that MMA people can and have used "deadly force" on each other in the ring, making your argument moot.

http://www.mmatko.com/ufc-4-classic-mma-fight-video-dan-severn-vs-anthony-macias/

Plenty of other examples in the early UFC's if you care to look.

Quote:

You can't judge a TMA based upon what they can/have used in MMA any more then you can judge MMA based upon the standards of boxing. It would be like saying that MMA footwork doesn't work because you never see a boxer use it...




Actually, you can use competition as fair measure of effectiveness. What other way is there?
_________________________
"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Top
#407602 - 10/13/08 02:19 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: MattJ]
everyone Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/02/07
Posts: 597
Loc: USA
The "super-duper TMA techniques" will not work flawlessly. But a TMA fighter will have the goal to make them work, and sometimes they will.

To test effectiveness of TMA techniques, they do have to be tested against a resisting opponent. They have to be taken to the point just before causing serious damage, then released or at least loosened. In a MMA environment, this compassion may cost you the fight.

As far as "no rules challenges", there is/was no such thing unless the competitors are/were willing to go to prison.

IMO most serious (TMA) techniques come from ground or clinch/very close range, but just because something is a ground or clinch technique doesn't remove it from being a sport technique. This is defined by intent of the technique (hurt or maim/kill). MMA techniques are designed to hurt and result in a KO or submission. The same can be said for most punches and kicks.

I think this covers your points (in a random order).

I believe the main difference of opinion we have is that you don't believe there are effective techniques outside of what is used in MMA. I believe there are. Maybe someday we can meet and demonstrate our points. I am not sure there would be any other way to sway eachothers opinions. (And no, I'm not challenging you to a fight. No reason to get my butt kicked over some silly beliefs)

Michael

Top
#407603 - 10/13/08 02:50 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: everyone]
butterfly Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 3012
Loc: Torrance, CA
Everyone,

I’m gonna back up Matt on this one. The reason is that you are making an assumption here that can be false. That is to say that a BJJer or MMAist (or whomever) will exclusively study ‘sporting’ methods with exclusive sporting limitations. As a comparison using TMAs, is it the assumption that all who compete within sponsored kumite matches, say within karate, will endeavor to only practice those techniques allowed in the competition? Why would one think those only practicing BJJ or MMA would simply practice only sporting elements?

However, what one can compare between use of techniques, when looking at opponents, is how well they deliver them. And further, what constraints does a particular competition put on those techniques? For instance, if we just examine a punch….how is it different in application when used in competition, or for real in a defensive situation? The answer when you examine it is that there is no difference. The way you train application is how you will apply it, regardless of the circumstances to use the technique.

As far as using more sophisticated or dangerous, disallowed techniques….this is an up in the air question since they are not allowed. But they are not allowed in TMA sparring as far as I can tell either. And the justification for technical ability even within TMAs has been in sparring application up to the point of their ‘deadly’ use, and that is the same as MMA or any of the modern, sporting arts. Just that they seem to have a higher, proven record against TMAs in that arena.

Again, I personally don’t believe it’s the technical repertoire of any system, but more a way of training them for use.

Top
#407604 - 10/13/08 03:24 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: everyone]
MattJ Offline
Free Rhinoplasty!
Prolific

Registered: 11/25/04
Posts: 15634
Loc: York PA. USA
Quote:

IMO most serious (TMA) techniques come from ground or clinch/very close range, but just because something is a ground or clinch technique doesn't remove it from being a sport technique. This is defined by intent of the technique (hurt or maim/kill).




I understand, but intent will not trump skill very often. MMA people specialize in those ranges, making it unlikely that someone else will be able to out-skill them there, no matter the intent.

Quote:

I believe the main difference of opinion we have is that you don't believe there are effective techniques outside of what is used in MMA.




Whoa, dude! Way off base with that assumption. I did American kenpo for some time. I know there are plenty of non-sporting things that will work. But I also know that they are not any more reliable than most of the sporting techniques.

Quote:

I believe there are. Maybe someday we can meet and demonstrate our points. I am not sure there would be any other way to sway eachothers opinions. (And no, I'm not challenging you to a fight. No reason to get my butt kicked over some silly beliefs)

Michael




No worries. I am no great fighter. I am not even an MMAer. I am a bad kenpo guy and even worse BJJ'er.
_________________________
"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Top
#407605 - 10/13/08 03:57 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: MattJ]
everyone Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/02/07
Posts: 597
Loc: USA
Well then I guess we agree on many of the same points then. A skilled MMA fighter can defend themselves better then a less skilled TMA fighter. MMA and other competition does tend to increase skill level.

I would never rely upon a "finishing technique" to end a fight but that will be my goal (so I assume it will not work, cut the technique short, and keep sparring in practice).

And for Butterfly's points, I presented my arguements in a very black/white for sake of arguement (to present a point). Sport and self-defense are not polar opposites as I may have implied. But I still think intent and what techniques one chooses to focus on will define whether one is practicing a sport or self-defense.

This thread started out focusing on effectiveness of Aikido techniques. The principles of the techniques are sound. They also are generally not suitable for MMA or other sports (but they are not intended for sport).

Top
#407606 - 10/14/08 12:29 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: butterfly]
dandjurdjevic Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 05/10/08
Posts: 844
Loc: Australia
Quote:

Quote:

the reason is an inadequate knowledge and appreciation of front kicks and other traditional techniques resulting from dilution.




Not to be too abrupt here, this is dismissive in some sense and patronizing in another since you are generalzing about a large group with whom you may have little to no truck, despite your experience.




Well, butterfly you're right. The comment was hastlily made and overly generalised. It sounds dismissive and patronising of people I know to be skilled fighters, so I must apologise.

However my view that the front kick is poorly understood remains. That it is so because of long term dilution (both in the traditional martial arts where its application is fading and, by extension in modern combat sports) is also my firm view. I find this a regrettable situation because I have found it to be an excellent technique - albeit hard to learn. I think it is a matter of time before we start seeing its use more frequently. I might be wrong, but that's how I see it.

In my experience, part of the difficulty with front kicks is that they can only really be applied in what I have termed the "melee range" and this is not the focus of many traditional (or ring) fighting disciplines today - many will cut straight the clinch or grappling once their full range is breached.

In the end you have presented your view cogently, coherently and politely, which I respect (cf. my own response).
_________________________
http://www.dandjurdjevic.com/

Top
#407607 - 10/14/08 11:23 AM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: dandjurdjevic]
butterfly Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 3012
Loc: Torrance, CA
Dan and Everyone,

First, Michael, you're right. This topic was about Aikido principles and got a bit side tracked. And no biggie about irritations real or perceived in the comments.

This was an honest appraisal of our understandings and an argument worth the time. As I am fond of saying, what fun would it be to watch a game and everyone roots for the same team?

Top
#407608 - 10/14/08 01:58 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: MattJ]
Ames Offline
Veteran

Registered: 05/29/05
Posts: 1117
First, yeah this discussion got sidetracked...but then again it's been lively and I've seen no reason to shut the thread down.

Matt, I'm not saying that by including grappling the odds were unfairly stacked against the TMA fighters in the early UFC's. What I'm saying is that the odds were stacked in the Gracie's favour because they did not include high level representatives of other grappling arts (such as Judo).

Now, that being said, I still think the Gracie's would have taken those early UFC's because, as you said, BJJ grew out of Vale Tudo and thus had the most experiance under this rule set. TMA had zero.

I'm also not disargeeing really with the thrust of your agrument, namely that MMA is a useful art for 'street self defence'. I've sparred all out and grappled with MMA practioners, and anyone who beleive an eye- gouge or an elbow to the back of the head is enough to stop these guys is delusional. Hopefully that delusion won't get them killed.

On the other hand, I think TMA offers many things which MMA doesnt'. Not everyone is interested in becoming the toughest mo'fo on the street. There are alot of other perfectly valid reasons to get into the martial arts.

I recently read an article in a backissue of 'Journal of Asian Martial Arts' where several studies were discussed which posit the theory that certain activies alter the personality of the athlete. It was shown that without a proper ethical framework, practioners of certain methods of combative training are far more likely to engage in violence outside the dojo; whereas those who engage in certain TMA are far less likely. I think Aikido, in this context, might make sense for a lot of people to de-stress and become calmer people. I'll dig up the issue and reference it directly when I'm back home.

All that being said, the main thing I was saying in this thread has not really been answered by anyone. I showed videos of techniques that are written off as 'low percentage' working in an MMA environment in hopes that MMA practioners might realize that there is a wealth of knowledge contained in TMA which may make their fighting abilities greater.

At the same time, TMA people need a better delivery system in order for their techniques to work. What we all need to do is to realize that both of our arts can be enhanced by an openminded appraisal of the 'other'.

What I'm begining to see is MMA people 'stopping' at the arts which are already used in MMA competition (greco-roman, boxing, MT, BJJ). This is unfortunate, because there are many techniques which can be taken from other arts and succesfully used in competition.

--Chris
_________________________
"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought."
--Basho

Top
#407609 - 10/14/08 02:42 PM Re: Hmm... Okay.... [Re: Ames]
fileboy2002 Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 999
Loc: Chicago, IL
I wanna chime in to to say Ames is absolutely correct whe he says not everyone interested in studying martial arts wants to be a bad-ass. One reason I prefer to study judo rather than MMA is that at age 39, I don't want to get punched in the face 500 times a week.

What makes MMA so attractive to one group of prospective students is the same thing that makes another group look elsewhere. I hope the MA community remains a big tent where many people can find their niche.

Top
Page 1 of 17 1 2 3 ... 16 17 >


Moderator:  Ames, Cord, MattJ, Reiki 




Action Ads
1.5 Million Plus Page Views
Monthly
Only $89
Details

Ryukyu Art
Artifacts from the Ryukyu Kingdom missing since WWII. Visit www.ShisaLion.Org to view pictures

Best Stun Guns
Self Defense Products-stun guns, pepper spray, tasers and more

Surveillance 4U
Complete surveillance systems for covert operations or secure installation security

Asylum Images
Book presents photo tour of the Trans-Allegany Lunatic Asylum. A must if you're going to take a ghost tour!

 



Unbreakable Unbrella

krav maga