"Aikido and truth don't mix well'
Yeah, thats why Jason Delucia a fighter, a fighter that has had over 50 MMA fights for some reason adopted aikido as his base style.
Then you come start making fun of tai chi when in fact there's an tai chi school in vancover, Canada that has had fighters fight in MMA and grappling tournaments and were successful.
Its all about how you train not the art, the art just shows you a way and its up to the school plus the practioners, to make sure that this WAY can be expressed in the most agressive situations. which comes from training with resistance.
"Aikido and truth don't mix well'
In general, aikido sucks.This statement alone shows you don't know what you're talking about.
Difference of opinion only.
Actually, your statement shows your lack of argumentative skills.
Easy enough: You don't agree with me, thus I don't know what I'm talking about.
Brilliant! You must be so proud...
'Actually, your statement shows your lack of argumentative skills'
whats there to argue about, there's really no point to argue with ignorance. All you could do is state facts and hope that person accepts the truth, Someday.
'Easy enough: You don't agree with me, thus I don't know what I'm talking about,Brilliant! You must be so proud... '
I hope your proud to because you came to this thread saying Aikido sucks but yet still fail to give us a significant reason why it does except for its Mumbo Jumbo philosophy. What is this Mumbo Jombo philosophy?
Did Delucia take up Aikido before or after his fights with Gracie?
Actually, your statement shows your lack of argumentative skills.At the time I didn't like arguing with someone who's at such a disadvantage.You say aikido 'sucks'. Well, news flash, an art is only as good or bad as how it's trained. There is no 'good' or 'bad' art. Just good and bad training techniques.For you to make blanket comments about a particular art shows that you've failed to realize this.
There is no 'good' or 'bad' art.PC rubbish.There are "good" and "bad" arts once someone clearly defines an environment and purpose. Some strategies are more effective than others, some approaches are significantly better than others. There may be exceptions to the rules, but let's not pretend that those exceptions are anything but exceptions.
I disagree, Paw. The only thing that sets arts apart is in how hard they are trained.
The only thing that sets arts apart is in how hard they are trained. There is something that makes "boxing" fundamentally different than "wrestling", despite similarities in training methods.
Springy Palm, you need to go back and read before making stupid statements. I already explained the "why" of my statement. You can disagree if you want, but don't say I haven't explained.
psfjkd, that is more bullshit than I'm willing to ignore.
Get a newbie and train him with the best aikido guy you can find. Get another and take him to a neighborhood boxing gym.
Let them both train for a year and then let them fight no-rules.
In fact, let the aikido guy fight any local high school wrestler.
I'm sure in your heart, you know the results. You may not want to admit it because you fear loosing face.
I have trained shotokan karate for over 30 years. I have come accross people who have trained for a few months and then say "shotokan sucks", so I'm careful about making judgements based on limited experience. When I say "aikido sucks", I mean it. Just like I mean it when I say shotokan is a flaky system.
If all you want is to have a good time and fraternize, then yes, any style will do. But that is it.
This is more of the crap that traditionalists take heat for. People like you can't admit when something is just plain "wrong".
As paw mentions above, there are some styles that are just superior.
"There is something that makes 'boxing' fundamentally different than 'wrestling,' despite similarities in training methods."
Right, but I guess I meant that doesn't make boxing "good" and wrestling "bad" or vice versa. You wrote, "There are 'good' and 'bad' arts once someone clearly defines an environment and purpose." I think what you meant by this is that if the "environment and purpose" is an MMA competition, aikido might not be your best bet. Fair enough. But I simply don't believe in the superiority or inferiority of systems, only in the character of the persons training in them.
I think what you meant by this is that if the "environment and purpose" is an MMA competitionIt was not. I meant any generic environment and purpose.For example....let's say, improving physical fitness. The training method of so-called "sport" systems (boxing, muay thai, judo, bjj, sambo, etc....) will consistently produce results. Aikido will either not produce results or not produce as dramatic results, based on my experiences.Here's another non-MMA example: I would never recommend aikido to someone who wanted to be very good at shooting a bow and arrow. I'd direct them to kyudo or kyu-jitsu (if such and animal exists). There are certainly variations within an art, but on a whole I strongly believe it is misleading to presume that all arts are equal when a specific purpose is defined. Does that make my position more clear to you?
I think the biggest argument about aikido stems from the fact thatit has become so watered down.
1) removed strikes used to set up the throws/locks (look at ueshiba's book 'Budo' and you will see him striking while doing a technique.
2) not much training against realistic "western" strikes such as boxing punches
I remember reading a story about a famous aikido instructor and a boxer wanted to challenge them. One of his students faught him and was soundly defeated. the master then volunteered to fight him and as it started he performed irimi (entering) into his strong side immediatly took him down and pinned him. he knew that the front hand was a "set up" hand so he avoided it and went to where he knew the real danger was. The tools aikido has can do the job when they are PROPERLY applied, but not many students/instructors share or train them this way.
I think the biggest argument about aikido stems from the fact thatit has become so watered down. 1) removed strikes used to set up the throws/locks (look at ueshiba's book 'Budo' and you will see him striking while doing a technique. Ueshiba's technique evolved over time. There is a profound difference between his "pre-war" and "post-war" style. He was, by all accounts, martially effective during both time periods...so I don't buy this explaination.2) not much training against realistic "western" strikes such as boxing punches Go to any aikido board and ask if they train defenses against boxing punches or kicks, and you will find that most aikidoka will say they do.
He was, by all accounts, martially effective during both time periods...so I don't buy this explaination
But, his students for the most part, couldn't do "his" aikido effectively when he changed his approach. He came from a fighting background and was familiar with other arts and he could use his techniques to work, and could later do them without certain things (ie: atemi). This isn't true of most students, they haven't gone through the learning process to do what he did. He also talked in metaphysical concepts making it very hard for later students to really know what he was talking about in terms of his art.
They might say that they train that way, but I have not seen it in my experience nor from what I have heard from alot of other people. I am not bashing aikido, I have alot of respect for the art itself and what it was, I just think there was too much emphasis from the Tohei branch on the ki/cooperation part of it.
But, his students for the most part, couldn't do "his" aikido effectively when he changed his approach. Where to begin.....First off, only Ueshiba could do his aikido by definition anyone else would do their aikido.Secondly, there are a number of accounts that several of Ueshiba's uchi deshi were martially effective as they took part in a number of duels and won (Tohei immediately comes to mind).Finally, there exist a fair number of shihan who still have a reputation for being martially effective. If that reputation is deserved or not, I do not know, nor frankly, do I care.They might say that they train that way, but I have not seen it in my experience nor from what I have heard from alot of other people.If someone desires effective technique they should find a school that cultivates it. The fact that the McDojo down the street can't fight doesn't mean that I dismiss the art they are teaching, even though there are 10 McDojos (at least) to every one legit school.
Paw, I'm sorry, I'm still not getting you. First you said:
"There are 'good' and 'bad' arts once someone clearly defines an environment and purpose."
I said, "You mean MMA?" You said, no, "I meant any generic environment and purpose." Then you said, "It is misleading to presume that all arts are equal when a specific purpose is defined."
What are we talking about here, any environment, or a specific environment?
I trained with Mitsunari Kanai (live in student with Ueshiba for 10 years and 8th dan I believe) in Boston for a month. I wasn't impressed with it.
What are we talking about here, any environment, or a specific environment?Pick any environment and specific goal. Some arts will be "better" than others within that framework. Just like it's misleading to say "all cars are good". That is NOT true when one considers an environment and a purpose.A friend of mine is a self-employed carpenter. He works in mostly rural areas. A large vehicle (SUV, Mini-van, Pickup) is better than a sports car given his needs (goal --- to carry his stuff around) in his environment (rural). For the record, he drives a Mini-van like thing that has 4 wheel drive.But a Mini-van is a poor choice for someone I work with. My co-worker drives a hybrid car. Why? He drives a great distance, and he only has to transport himself. A Mini-van would be horribly expensive to afford (just on gas prices alone) and the extra space is not only not needed but unwanted. So too, would be a sports car be a poor choice.If someone asks me, "what martial art should I study" or "I can train X, Y or Z...what should I choose" .... to me the only honest answer is determine what their goals are and then find match that way.