Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Aikido, or something similar?
Comments
-
The atemi in question do not develop the skills of timing required to deal with real strikes. If you really believe that you are developing these skills then get a boxer to throw a few jabs at you or rather ask your sensei (hope she's well!I doubt that anyone who has trained under Sensei Rogers in Pearse St. would agree! *grin* When we don't guard, he hits us (or sometimes shows us he can hit us). When he attacks so that we can defend, there's no doubt that his strike could cut right through us.
) to step up with a boxer and see how they get on. I dont doubt the ferocity of the attacks but I dont feel that as training methods go they instill the necessary skills to deal with real combat.
It used to be on 4 times a week actually. And i also trained in Pearse St. Since you know me rather than trying to discredit me or invalidate my opinions why not look at what Im saying and see if it strikes a chord. Im not claiming to have been at master level, I just stated my experience.(I realise that you say you practised five days a week for three years. But I can't help but wonder, with whom? I thought aikido was only run in UCD twice a week?)
Have you tried Aikido or Ju-Jitsu on a fully resisting opponent. Try them on a judoka, bjj fighter, boxer or thai fighter and see how they work. I regularily try my MMA on the above and prove it works. I refine my techniques and develop skills in a pressure tested environment and not a vacuum like most TMA people. Real combat is not a vacuum. Why practice in one?On a related note, I also practise ju-jitsu, and I believe that every martial art can be effective. I have seen aikido techniques work on ju-jitsu practitioners, and I have seen ju-jitsu techniques work on aikido practitioners.
Only if you're training right!It depends on the level and dedication of one's training.
I think there are great training methods and poor training methods. You can have the best teachers in the world and if they arent using proper training methods then the MA will never be effective.I agree with you in saying that the effectiveness of any given martial art as concerns oneself depends on the standard of instruction that one receives. There are great dojos and terrible dojos in every martial art.
Nice to talk to you again. Hope everything is going well in your training and in the rest of your life!However, I would not agree in saying that the instruction *you* received was lacking. Unless I'm mistaken (which is entirely possible as I don't have the best memory for names and faces), I've met and practised with some of your instructors. I would consider them to be brilliant teachers. I have also attended aikido courses, gradings, and summer school with you.
I find it very hard to understand why you are posting the kind of derogatory remarks contained in this thread. So you can't get aikido to work for you, and you don't enjoy it anymore. Well, that's life - it happens. It's hardly the end of the world. *smile* But why try to deter people who are interested in learning aikido?
Youre kind of seeing what Im saying as a personal attack on you or Aikido. Far from it. The thread asked about the self defence benefits of Aikido and I gave my honest opinion from my experience. I have fought amateur MMA/Vale Tudo twice now and I train MMA/BJJ. I practice against full resistance and I fully believe that unless you train against full resistance then you wont be able to apply your training against real people. Its not like I have a gripe or bitterness about Aikido or its people. I do however think that Aikido like pretty much every traditional martial art trains wrong.
To repeat, its not the art or the people its the training method.
Cheers and Best Wishes,
Colum0 -
Actually, it's funny you should mention boxing. One of my ju-jitsu instructors is a former champion boxer, and also one of the more dangerous people I've met. He and my aikido instructor at Maynooth (she's very well, thank youcolumok wrote:The atemi in question do not develop the skills of timing required to deal with real strikes. If you really believe that you are developing these skills then get a boxer to throw a few jabs at you or rather ask your sensei (hope she's well! ) to step up with a boxer and see how they get on. I dont doubt the ferocity of the attacks but I dont feel that as training methods go they instill the necessary skills to deal with real combat.) would both attest to the effectiveness of each other's techniques and abilities. As regards what would happen if *I* stepped up against my ju-jitsu instructor, however... *huge grin* If he was trying to teach me a technique in the dojo, he wouldn't flatten me, as that would definitely impede my learning. But if it ever, ever, ever came to a fight - and God forbid that it would - I'd be carried off in an ambulance. I have absolutely no doubt about that.
Is that because aikido is inferior to ju-jitsu or boxing? Certainly not. It's because I'm a low grade (with only some experience) and he's a high grade (with lots of martial arts and real combat experience). He and my aikido instructor teach me the necessary skills to deal with real combat. Although their styles are very different, they have many common elements, all of which are of practical importance in real combat. Some will take longer than others to develop - a lot longer in many cases concerning aikido! But, however long it takes for me to understand those principles in even the most limited sense, I'm going to keep trying.
I'm not trying to discredit you. Honestly.It used to be on 4 times a week actually. And i also trained in Pearse St. Since you know me rather than trying to discredit me or invalidate my opinions why not look at what Im saying and see if it strikes a chord. Im not claiming to have been at master level, I just stated my experience. I'm trying to reconcile your knowledge to my knowledge. What I understood was that there were two classes on per week last year. Since you gave up aikido some way into the last academic year (if I'm correct - tell me if not), that would have meant that for at least a period of your training, it was only on twice a week. This is why I brought the point up in the first place. As I say, I have no interest in discrediting you.
Yes. I have tried. Often, their resistance stops me from doing the technique I want. There are other techniques that could be tried (which might work better on an opponent resisting in a particular way), but there's little point in trying something other than the technique in question at a level so low as mine (since reversal won't come for years). It's better to try and gain further understanding of whatever clashing of power and direction are occurring. Other times, however, my opponent's resistance makes the technique even easier. It's almost like they give themselves away by stiffening up! Amazing. Mind you, for me, the latter occurs frequently, whereas former occurs infrequently. I think that's to be expected because I'm just a beginner. I think it really depends on the circumstances and on one's level of experience. Yet I don't even see it as a loss when it happens. It's just something to learn from.Have you tried Aikido or Ju-Jitsu on a fully resisting opponent. Try them on a judoka, bjj fighter, boxer or thai fighter and see how they work. I regularily try my MMA on the above and prove it works. I refine my techniques and develop skills in a pressure tested environment and not a vacuum like most TMA people. Real combat is not a vacuum. Why practice in one?
I'm not sure if I understand you. Surely part of being a good teacher is having correct knowledge to impart? I suppose it's possible to have good teaching skills in the abstract, but unless one was lecturing in education, I doubt one would have many students. *grin*I think there are great training methods and poor training methods. You can have the best teachers in the world and if they arent using proper training methods then the MA will never be effective.
You too! I wish you all the best, both martial-arts-wise and life-wise.Nice to talk to you again. Hope everything is going well in your training and in the rest of your life!
I don't see this as a personal attack on me. How could it possibly be? The discussion was occurring before I arrive, and no-one has mentioned ( or probably even knows) any of my personal details. *grin* However, although it's not an attack on all aikido, I believe it is an attack on the self defence possibilities in aikido. I think you've pretty much admitted this (although I'm open to correction on this as on any other point).Youre kind of seeing what Im saying as a personal attack on you or Aikido. Far from it.
I really think that, on a board where martial arts are discussed, it's best not to say negative things about other arts. Best just to say positive things about one's own. There are many arts that one will not have the chance to witness the effectiveness of (for whatever reason), but it's only fair to assume that there is effectiveness there.The thread asked about the self defence benefits of Aikido and I gave my honest opinion from my experience. I have fought amateur MMA/Vale Tudo twice now and I train MMA/BJJ. I practice against full resistance and I fully believe that unless you train against full resistance then you wont be able to apply your training against real people. Its not like I have a gripe or bitterness about Aikido or its people. I do however think that Aikido like pretty much every traditional martial art trains wrong.
In the case of aikido, you found that it wasn't effective for you in a self defence situation. But it might be effective for someone else. That person won't know unless they try it. Of course, they're free to try Brazilian ju-jitsu too. I have no problem whatsoever with anyone extolling the virtues of that art. We've done a bit in our ju-jitsu classes in Maynooth, and it looks and feels very effective. But, even if I hadn't found it to be effective, I would assume there was effectiveness to be found, and that anyone interested in the art should look for themselves.
God bless and be well!0 -
-
CAVEAT: Just before I start I want to be clear that I refer only to the self defence capabilities of martial arts. MA obviously have other benefits but I'm disregarding them here!Is that because aikido is inferior to ju-jitsu or boxing? Certainly not. It's because I'm a low grade (with only some experience) and he's a high grade (with lots of martial arts and real combat experience). He and my aikido instructor teach me the necessary skills to deal with real combat. Although their styles are very different, they have many common elements, all of which are of practical importance in real combat. Some will take longer than others to develop - a lot longer in many cases concerning aikido! But, however long it takes for me to understand those principles in even the most limited sense, I'm going to keep trying.
The principles taught in Aikido, Jiu Jitsu, Karate, Kung Fu etc are the exact same as those taught in Muay Thai, Judo, Boxing, BJJ and MMA. Their application through training is what differs. Look at early UFC to see the difference between Muay Thai and Karate or TKD. They teach the same ideas (punching, kicking and blocking) but they train differently. As a result Muay Thai is infinitely more effective. They train with full resistance and discard anything that doesnt work. Karate and TKD dont train this way and as such dont produce fighters of the same calibre. Real opponents will be resisting fully so pressure tested martial arts/combat sports understand this and train accordingly. TMA dont seem to grasp this.
If it takes such a long time for someone who is clearly able and intelligent to understand such principles I would be questioning the training methods. BJJ, Wrestling and Judo practitioners use the exact same principles (Balance, timing, centering, distancing, zanshin etc.) from Aikido and because of training methods grasp from day one. Again Aikido principles are sound but the training methods are flawed.But, however long it takes for me to understand those principles in even the most limited sense, I'm going to keep trying.
Back in my day'm not trying to discredit you. Honestly. I'm trying to reconcile your knowledge to my knowledge. What I understood was that there were two classes on per week last year. Since you gave up aikido some way into the last academic year (if I'm correct - tell me if not), that would have meant that for at least a period of your training, it was only on twice a week. This is why I brought the point up in the first place. As I say, I have no interest in discrediting you. UCD Aikido trained Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday. Pearse St. Tuesday, Wed night or Friday. Never Saturday- too full!
Out of interest, who against and under what rules i.e MMA rules, Muay Thai rules, Boxing rules, Judo rules, wrestling rules, submission grappling rules. If it was full resistance then it would have been against one of these sets of rules for the sake of safety.Yes. I have tried. Often, their resistance stops me from doing the technique I want. There are other techniques that could be tried (which might work better on an opponent resisting in a particular way), but there's little point in trying something other than the technique in question at a level so low as mine (since reversal won't come for years).
No. Being a good teacher is your ability to impart that knowledge. The proof is in the improvement of your students and their ability to perform under real pressure.Surely part of being a good teacher is having correct knowledge to impart?
Also you can be a great teacher but if you are rigidly adhering to poor teaching practices then your students will not learn. I think with many TMAs you have great teachers adhering to archaic training practices that do not develop the skills they set out to develop.
Whatever about martial arts, self defence is a science. As Colm has already eloquently said, you propose something, test it and accept or reject it. If a martial art advertises itself as a science (self defence) then it should be analysed as critically as new cancer breakthroughs or theoretical physics theorems.I really think that, on a board where martial arts are discussed, it's best not to say negative things about other arts. Best just to say positive things about one's own. There are many arts that one will not have the chance to witness the effectiveness of (for whatever reason), but it's only fair to assume that there is effectiveness there.
You shouldnt accept anyones word as it is inherently subjective and therefore littered with inaccuracies, anecdotes and hearsay. Better to test and figure out for yourself. Dont believe that BJJ or MMA works. Try it (or dont) before you make such a decision. If I told you to I had a revolutionary way of playing soccer that allowed me to beat teams of world class players wouldnt you want real hard proof. Why should martial arts be any different.But, even if I hadn't found it to be effective, I would assume there was effectiveness to be found, and that anyone interested in the art should look for themselves.
Cheers,
Colum0 -
As Colum said, opinions about martial arts are subjective. That is, they're grounded in our own personal experience. Something that doesn't work for one might work for somebody else (for a wide variety of different reasons that need not reflect badly on the art itself). If any given person finds that they can't apply what they're taught in a useful way, well, they either persist until they can, or they go and learn something else.Colm_OReilly wrote:If we were discussing Evolution, should I not say anything bad about Lamarckian principles? Only extol the positive side of Dawkin's Selfish Gene? Of course not, Lamarckian Evolution is flawed and it's worthwhile pointing it out and reasoning why it is so.
Now, if some martial art is propagating falsehoods about how to defend oneself (which is the most common question beginners ask on this forum) why shouldn't we - as people who practice day in day out against others who are fully uncooperative, as an opponent on THE STREET would be - point out which training methods are flawed when it comes to developing the skills necessary to defend oneself.
At no point is it necessary to rubbish another martial art simply because one can't do it. For instance, I am very poor at judo. That's okay. But I know that judo teaches extremely useful and effective principles, and hence feel no need to rubbish it to others.
However, science is different. To use your example, we don't find inheritance of acquired characteristics in some people and not in others. Hence, it is useful to get rid of outmoded Lamarckian ideas, whereas it is not useful to tell people not to practise other arts.
But there are great masters in all martial arts who can show-case the effectiveness of their disciplines, and do so repeatedly.If something isn't tested repeatedly, don't accept it's effectiveness.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
You've already decided what's effective and what isn't, what's a good training method and what isn't. It would appear to be whatever you're doing yourself. Good for you. But it could be better. If you kept a more open mind, you could learn from other disciplines and adapt their strengths to the strong points your technique already possesses.Colm_OReilly wrote:When people ask what's effective in SD, I'm going to go with what has been proven time and time again, and those are the ones with solid training methods. The martial arts that can prove themselves do so all the time, almost without even questioning it. It becomes the essense of what they do.
You believe that any martial art that isn't competitive can't be effective because it doesn't give a practitioner the chance to prove their worth by beating someone else. Even leaving aside the fact that there are so many different standards of competition, with so many different rules sets, that a common standard for measuring all martial arts is nearly impossible to establish, beating an opponent can be a result of one's training, without being the real, central aim.Those people in MA's that aren't effective, and haven't a competitive element refuse to train with anybody who's questioning them. They'll either ignore the question, state it's too dangerous to try, say it's against their principles or make up some other excuse.
Excuses tend to be the province of people who are preoccupied with their own image. Surely someone who doesn't care whether they win or lose in a competition, but cares rather for the principles that they learn (which help them to become a more effective combatant) wouldn't be interested in making excuses about their losses (which would blind them to the real lesson) but in explaining why it happened.In other arts, and I'm sad to say 95% of them, people aren't training realistically so they can make excuses everytime they fail. ("Oh I'm not high enough yet" "My chi was off" "If it happened again..." etc ad nauseum)
That's the difference between an excuse and an explanation. One is made up and the other is true. If you assume that most practitioners of other martial arts systematically lie in order to protect themselves from the horrid "truth" that there's nothing to their art, then you're not treating them as equal human beings in the first place, and, I'm sorry to say, will probably never see the point in the disciplines that they're studying. (Mind you, I hope you *do* come to see the point. It just doesn't seem very likely.)
Again, you simply assume that students of these arts are too stupid or too trusting to examine anything in their arts with an open mind.Where? In seminars with their students (all like minded individuals).
That question would have to be answered by each individual instructor. But, personally, I think that the instructor with nothing to prove is far more likely to have actual skill than the one itching to prove him or herself.Or do they enter Vale Tudo (portugeuse literal translation=anything goes), MMA competitions? Would they be willing to spar me if I asked them
Ultimately, my differences with you stem from this belief: only when someone trains longer, and achieves a higher standard, than the best practitioner of any given art, can they cateorically state that this art is useless. But, when they do, they will have no reason to do so, because they will know that it's not.
As previously stated, I include your art in this. It is you who does not include mine. That's fine by me - you're entitled to your opinion. But I still think that martial artists should stop trying to deter people who are interested in another art simply because they do not like that art themselves. Live and let live. Freedom and variety bring about human flourishing. 0 -
I used to think Colm was very closed minded too. I have come to realise that with training for something like combat if you arent training with full resistance then it simply wont work. Look at a sport like Rugby, fairly combatative and physical. To be a good rugby player you have to go out day in day out and practice against other good rugby players. To become good at avoiding rugby tackles you have to get good tacklers to try and tackle you.But it could be better. If you kept a more open mind, you could learn from other disciplines and adapt their strengths to the strong points your technique already possesses.
Boxing is the same. To be good at not getting hit in boxing you have to get a boxer to try and hit you. You can do as much pad work as you like and as much shadow boxing but to be good at the not getting hit bit you have to spar. Simple as that. Combat is no different- if you dont spar you dont develop skills. Judo people spar and develop skills. Its not closed minded to say that a boxing gym that doesnt spar or a rugby team that doesnt train against a resistance is gonna lose in competition. So I ask why is combat any different? What is different in Aikido, Karate or other TMA from Boxing, Judo, MMA, Rugby et al?
Yes there is! Its called MMA or mixed martial arts. It allows competitors from Boxing, Judo, BJJ, Wrestling, Muay Thai, Karate, TKD etc to compete in a set of rules that includes striking, throwing, ground fighting. If you dont wanna train against strikes then Submission Grappling allows similar rules but without the striking. You can throw, joint lock, choke etc.Even leaving aside the fact that there are so many different standards of competition, with so many different rules sets, that a common standard for measuring all martial arts is nearly impossible to establish, beating an opponent can be a result of one's training, without being the real, central aim.Excuses tend to be the province of people who are preoccupied with their own image. Surely someone who doesn't care whether they win or lose in a competition, but cares rather for the principles that they learn (which help them to become a more effective combatant) wouldn't be interested in making excuses about their losses (which would blind them to the real lesson) but in explaining why it happened.
I recommend the following article by Matt Thornton on the issue of training motivations and image vs. performance. At the least its an interesting thought provoking article.Why doesnt everyone train alive?
This is pretty fundamental to what I (and Colm and others believe) about training. At least after reading it, agree or not , you'll understand where we are coming from.
Take it easy and enjoy the bank holiday.
Colum0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Advertisement