Ah, okay. So back to what you first said. What "environment and purpose" are you referring to? Or are you saying, simply, "Some arts are useless if you want to really fight, and aikdio is one of them?"
You wrote:
"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'm just saying I don't believe all arts are "good".
I notice that Jahz hasn't posted again on the thread that he/she started (are we being trolled?)...and I have no desire to discuss if aikido is martially effective.
I don't even know why I'm arguing with you. I don't do aikido myself, and probably never would unless I had studied the other arts I think make up a competent fighter first (MMA). But, I might, after that, take up aikido. I don't think it's "Bad," as you say. The only reason I brought it up is because I didn't understand what you were saying about "good" and "bad" arts and "PC rubbish" and all that.
My view: karate, Muay Thai, kung fu = irrelevant. If you train hard in one of these, you will be a good striker. Judo, BJJ, wrestling = irrelevant. If you train hard in one of these, you will be a good grappler. If you want to be a good fighter, pick one from column A and one from column B. Everybody knows this. None of these arts are "bad." Why do you insist they are, or that some of them are?
None of these arts are "bad." Why do you insist they are, or that some of them are? I wouldn't disagree with your grappling group (judo, bjj, wrestling) creating a good grappler. In my mind all three of those arts do, at least in sporting settings. (BJJ seems to also work well in military settings, as the "soldier ground" indicates bjj use in army combatives)I would take issue with karate, muay thai, kung fu all creating good strikers. Muay thai does. Kung fu? I only know of one, Cung Le....and even my little city has more than one kung fu studio. Karate? Same problem as kung fu. For every good karate striker I know, I can find two or three karate schools full of people who aren't effective. Now, one could argue that 99% of all the kung fu/karate schools are terrible (McDojos, if you will) and with proper training methods that would not be the case, and maybe that's even true. But then we have start talking about legit training methods in the art (can you really train that way?) and strategic considerations within the art (would someone in the art, really do that) and the technical repitore of an art (does that technique really exist, traditionally) and so on and so forth. And after all that discussion, it would boil down to our goals and our environment. Does a large, random selection of a group of art X do well in sport? military? Law enforcement? fitness? spiritual development? AS WELL AS art Y.Finally, I don't think we're arguing. I think we have a discussion based on different world views. We just "see" things differently, so to speak.
Hell, yes, we're arguing! I hate you, dude!
Just kidding. Part of me just refuses to believe that all the karate and kung fu schools are as bad as you say. But what do I know?
But I think you're also introducing the idea that some systems simply are inferior. For example, are you suggesting that no amount of training in shotokan punching is ever, ever, ever going to allow that shotokan fighter to successfully knuckle up against a boxer?
I really do think it's in the training. After talking with the MT guys over at the kickboxing forum I am convinced that the one thing that really sets them apart is they train hard, and there are no exceptions. You will never see a dog-ass MT McDojo full of little kids getting belts for kata. This will probably always be true of a sport-based art (note all the grappling examples are sport-based). It simply allows you to pressure test your skills in the best possible way.
But I think you're also introducing the idea that some systems simply are inferior. For example, are you suggesting that no amount of training in shotokan punching is ever, ever, ever going to allow that shotokan fighter to successfully knuckle up against a boxer? On any given Sunday..... But, in general, I think the odds are unlikely, based on my experience. Boxing consistently produces good strikers and good athletes. That's a hard combination to beat.You will never see a dog-ass MT McDojo full of little kids getting belts for kata. This will probably always be true of a sport-based art (note all the grappling examples are sport-based). It simply allows you to pressure test your skills in the best possible way. I agree. Sport-based training methods are very effective.So, for the sake of argument, let's say aikido would be martially effective IF aikidoka "sparred". (And we want to train in a martially effective art for some reason....) This ties into what consitutes an "art". Basically, only the Tomiki (Shodokan) aikido folks do anything that can be called "sparring" (free form training with an uncooperative instructor). One of the big reasons for the separation of Tomiki from Ueshiba was if sparring could be used as a training method in aikido. So as soon as you started "sparring", you'd have people claiming that would no longer be "aikido".
You and I are basically on the same page. Couple of thoughts:
1) Some tough mothers take aikido. Ex-wrestlers, ex-boxers, people that really know how to fight, take aikido. This gives me pause.
2) Are the aikido skills worth striving for, even if it means it takes a looooong time to be able to implement them? Isn't aikido's goal, of resolving a fight without anyone getting hurt, a good one?
Like I said, I'm not an aikido and probably never will be!
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.
-----------
And now you are agreeing with what I originally posted. Read everything I have said from the beginning, I didn't say it was ineffective, I said that the majority of schools don't train in a way condusive to effective technique. My first posts were talking about an instructor I know who has used and uses aikido effectively. I also, think though that the majority of aikido schools don't train that way though.
Read everything I have said from the beginning, I didn't say it was ineffective, I said that the majority of schools don't train in a way condusive to effective technique.Please grant me the same courtesy.Once we start talking about "the majority of schools" and how they train, we must discuss what training methodology is permitted within the art. Pre-War (Hombu) or Post-War (Aikikai)? Sparring (Tomiki) or not (everyone else)? What attacks are permitted? May the art be altered (new training methods developed, new techniques added, etc....) and still be aikido? As I understood it, your original arguement was that Ueshiba "watered down" his techique. I do not believe this arguement may be supported as there are shihan who have preserved Ueshiba's pre-war and post-war style.
As I understood it, your original arguement was that Ueshiba "watered down" his techique
---------
I did not say that Ueshiba "watered down" his technique or aikido. I said "it", meaning aikido, has been watered down. I did not say by whom. I would put this blame on instructors not on the style or any one branch in particular. I did make reference to Ueshiba's book "Budo" in talking about the atemi to show that it has always been in there and not something that needs to be added in.
The reason I talk about atemi in relation to aikido is I have trained in it before and the instructor taught atemi, but when he was gone and some of his senior students would instruct they would insist that they weren't really strikes, just simulated strikes to get your opponent to react. I have heard this echoed many other times by aikidoka as well, that you don't "really" ever hit and opponent to set up an unbalance/throw/lock.
I said "it", meaning aikido, has been watered down. I did not say by whom. I would put this blame on instructors not on the style or any one branch in particular. I did make reference to Ueshiba's book "Budo" in talking about the atemi to show that it has always been in there and not something that needs to be added in. I understand. And again, I disagree as there are shihan who have preserved the atemi rich, pre-war style style. There is no conclusive evidence that pre-war is more (or less) martially effective than post-war aikido....or even that Daito Ryu Aiki JuJitsu is more (or less) martially effective than aikido.
I would put this blame on instructors not on the style or any one branch in particular....
and I understand. And again, I disagree as there are shihan who have preserved the atemi rich, pre-war style style.
--------
We are agreeing on this point. You are saying that there are instructors who teach it, and I am saying there are some instructors who don't. We are both saying the same thing just coming at it from differing views.
I also agree about pre-war and post-war. The branch/style of aikido I had studied was shidokan which was a blend of Ueshiba and Tohei. BUT, the whole point I was trying to make is that even in that SAME style in the SAME school, you had instructors who would teach atemi, and others who insisted that it wasn't there. This is what I meant by watering down, taking things that ARE there and then removing them.
Then we disagree what "watering down" means.Your definition is: This is what I meant by watering down, taking things that ARE there and then removing them. My definition of "watering down is: taking things that ARE there and then removing them so that they are no longer effective.IMO, if your definition is true then aikido will cease to be a modern martial art and will be koryu --- a historically preserved, static, unchanging system....and all discussions of effectiveness will be moot.
Paw, I will disagree with your def. of koryu somewhat. I think it's more accurate to say a koryu is an art or ryu that can trace its unbroken lineage to the pre-Meiji era, not "a historically preserved, static, unchanging system." Some koryu do change, as I understand it, and aikido is not old enough to fit this definition.
I think it's more accurate to say a koryu is an art or ryu that can trace its unbroken lineage to the pre-Meiji era, not "a historically preserved, static, unchanging system." Be that as it may, if nothing can be removed from the art without the art being "watered down" then what remains will become an anachronism. The only other alternative is changes will force a the birth of a new art (like Aikido from Daito Ryu Aiki Jujitsu).Either aikido can change it's training method/techniques and still be aikido, or it cannot.If it can, it does not matter that atemi is removed from techniques if the results are not less desirable than aikido with atemi (pre-war aikido or Daito Ryu Aiki Jujitsu). And I do not believe the results of aikido with atemi is significantly better than aikido without atemi (pre-war vs post-war).If aikido cannot change its training method/techniques, then when it is changed is not accurately called "aikido".
My definition of "watering down is: taking things that ARE there and then removing them so that they are no longer effective.
I agree with that too. If an instructor can remove the atemi and still do the technique the same as with it or better and explain it and teach it to his students than that is not watering it down. Again, I am referring to things being removed because "aikido is about peace and harmony and we would never hit somebody" and they can't explain why there is no atemi nor can they still do the techniques without cooperation from their partners.
'aikido is about peace and harmony and we would never hit somebody'
this is where the philosophy about aikido gets corrupted, remember this is a martial art but the diferane with aikido is that it focuses more on defence techniques than offensive techniques. Jason Delucia descibes aikido best here
" For aiki, offensive or ''suigetsu'' would be to stimulate reaction then gain control of the action.
Without a pause or space in time between the stimulation and the neutralization so that they move seemlessly. Awase ho is the blending with your opponant by means of constant refinement of personal rhythm to be able to become one with your opponant depends on this rhythm. At this point you may respond improvisationaly. This state of improvisation is ''take musu."
Well, this is going to stir the pot but...
1. The term "aiki jujutsu" really wasn't in use until AFTER Aikido was
created. They were all forms of Jujutsu
2. O Sensei did NOT create Aikido to be a practical combat art. He saw
the war, he saw where the country was going. Kano saw Jujutsu and
took a step forward into the new world. O sensei took a step
"backward" to keep alive the traditions and teachings of the samauri.
3. The tea cermony is NOT about making a cup of tea. This is not to
say you don't get a good one at the end, but it isn't the point. Aikido is
not about winning a fight.
4. This is not to say O sensei didn't know practical martial arts, or that
others who went into Aikido didn't; but the reality is that Aikido is not,
nor was it created to be, a "fighting" art, if we define "fighting" as
practical techiniques to defeat an attacker....
...other than ourselves.
I took aikido in Denton at the college. We practiced randori where it was 3-5 people on one(they could only grab and try to put you on the ground). We had a huge mat area and all were beginners except for the instructor. it was fun but we basically were side stepping and slinging each other around till one of us finally got dog piled. The instructor was able to do better than us and throw us but as with most things the basic simple techniques were the ones that worked and the fancy stuff was impossible. It's not a real street situation but just by doing that you realize how much easier it is to punch, kick, and run away. If you can talk people into it is still alot of fun to do. But in the end you usually get dogpiled on as everyone keeps getting back up and coming after you. Also did the same thing one on one..fun but you realize that not being there to be hit is best.
PS... I took it for 2 years before I left town. I enjoyed it and would do it all over again. Currently train BJJ.
Aikido Sucks?
Are you saying that the techniques suck? The training method sucks? Or the philosophy of the art sucks?
Aikido does not suck.
The techniques are effective once you mastered them. However they take a long time to master. BJJ and wrestling has a fast learning curve on the basics so it is easier to see some progress. For those in a hurry aikido will definitely suck, but for those willing to work hard to develop flow and harmony, there will not be a problem.
Which aikido training method are you criticizing. Some of the training methods.
Combat Aikido
Jason DeLucia's Aikido, a mma oriented Aikido.
Ki Society
Tohei's organization emphasizes breathing exercises and meditation along with Aikido techniques. Techniques are performed in a relaxed and flowing manner. Many dojos also focus on incorporating Aikido principles in daily life.
A soft Aikido.
Iwama Aikido
Saito's dojo emphasizes bokken (wooden sword) and jo (staff). No other Aikido instructor has such a detailed system of Aiki weapons. Not only weapons, Saito also faithfully taught a system of empty hand techniques as he learned them in Iwama.
Yoshinkan Aikido
Gozo Shioda served the founder of Aikido, Morihei Ueshiba, as a live in student for 8 years. During this time, Shioda kancho (kancho means "head of school") was exposed to Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu, the more combat oriented art that Ueshiba was teaching at the time. He started his own Aikido movement called "Yoshinkan Aikido".
A hard Aikido
Tomiki Aikido.
Kenji Tomiki's Aikido, the competitive form of aikido. Charging knife attacks. There are many techniques which cannot be fully executed in free practice. Professor Tomiki classified and developed the most effective use of 50 of these techniques from traditional jujutsu and aikido. He called these Koryu-goshin-no-kata ("Self-defense form of traditional aikido"). Kenji Tomiki, founder of Tomiki Aikido, was a student of Jigoro Kano and Morihei Ueshiba.
YOSEIKAN Aikido
Mochizuki's aikido is a composite system including elements of judo, aikido, karate, and KOBUDO known as YOSEIKAN BUDO.
Mochizuki was sent to study with Morihei UESHIBA in 1930 by Jigoro KANO. Mochizuki opened his own dojo in Shizuoka City in November 1931. He was awarded two DAITO-RYU scrolls by Ueshiba in June 1932. Mochizuki was the first to teach aikido in the west when he traveled to France in 1951 as a judo instructor.