Street Fight

[ QUOTE ]
Ladon said:

Aikido would probably be best. A good defense is important, especially when it comes to weapons and handling multiple attackers. Excellent running ability is also a must /versus/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Aikido is a good way to get yourself hurt. Especially if you think that the dead, compliant drills they do with weapons and multiple attackers is making you prepared for anything.

Most martial arts look effective only a few really are. Aikido isn't one of them.

GE

 

If you take a year of Aikido and go into a street fight trying to use what you've learned, you're going to get mauled. If you take 5 years of Aikido, the chances are reduced, but it still looks bleak. However, someone who is good at Aikido and has been doing it actively for many years could handle himself in a street fight or a bar fight. That might be true for most martial arts, but I never said that practicing an irimi will help you in a street fight. It takes a lot, and it's not all show.

Also important is how you approach a martial art and who you learn from. 5 years of Aikido would be more useful than 5 years of Bajiquan in a fight, depending on the sensei and your degree of effort.

 

best thing i heard in a movie was in knockaround guys

vin diesel says "500..."

hes kinda right

 

[ QUOTE ]
Ladon said:
However, someone who is good at Aikido and has been doing it actively for many years could handle himself in a street fight or a bar fight. That might be true for most martial arts, but I never said that practicing an irimi will help you in a street fight. It takes a lot, and it's not all show.



[/ QUOTE ]

nope. all show.

GE (I refer you to my signature)

 

I saw the signature, but I thought it was just a silly joke or something. You know, someone being right all the time about everything, haha how amusing, that sort of thing? I didn't realize you were the real deal.

It must be a terrible burden. You have my sympathy.

 

Not all the time but in this instance I'd say absolutely. I've sat on Aikido gradings, I've seen the same dead patterns practiced and performed and seen complaint partners punch, swing swords and fall how the rules say they should. Aikido loses against most thugs with weapons and definately against the whole "multiple attacker" scenario. This really isn't a question of "how you train" since the only people training differently are those students that aren't in Aikido.

Aikido was meant for a completely different circumstance and time. It has never been properly updated thanks to blind adherence to tradition and "respect" for its teachers. too bad.

at any rate, no sympathy required, I'll take the burden of the world's weight if it means less illusions out there. You just be comfortable.

GE

 

Someone on another forum made an excellent point about this comparing opportunity cost. Let's pretend that after training aikido for 10 years that you can actually defend yourself. The time you spent on aikido could have spent doing MT, boxing, wrestling, or BJJ. So after 10 years, where would you be a better fighter? I hope the answer is obvious.

 

GodEater:
Some teachers of Aikido in this day are aware of the point you make and don't teach in the traditional way. One man down here teaches his students using physics to explain how the movements work. It's not the mindless exercises of a time long past as you believe, but to try to convince you otherwise would be impossible, especially over the internet. Let's see what time has to say, and if the art is useful, then let it live on.

I don't care much for the illusions we weave either, make no mistake. But the weight of the world? Good luck with that.

Vanity:
In the same way that all martial arts are different, all martial arts have different things to teach. You would not be the same person after training Aikido in 10 years and you would be training in boxing for 10 years. If martial arts were only about the fighting, then the art would be lost. I think Aikido has much to teach us all.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Ladon said:

Vanity:
In the same way that all martial arts are different, all martial arts have different things to teach. You would not be the same person after training Aikido in 10 years and you would be training in boxing for 10 years.

[/ QUOTE ] You're right, you probably still wouldn't be able to fight after 10 years of aikido.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

you could convince me over the internet. As brash as I'll sometimes make myself appear I'm actually very open. Here's the thing though...your example of a teacher instructing about the physics of the movements does not alter the inherent problems with Aikido. It just means the student has a deeper appreciation of what they are practicing even if they aren't aware that it isn't a functional exercise.

and its that awareness that is the problem. Combat arts have a duty to remain relevant in combat and I don't see that happening in many cases. Sometimes its the fault of the teacher, sometimes its the fault of the student and sometimes its the combined failure of both. There's a lot of handholding and wishful thinking going on and all its doing is deluding students into thinking they are somehow capable of fending off an attack. They look nice on a mat when their fellow students allow themselves to be disarmed or taken to the ground and wrist locked, or run into another student during the oh so popular "multiple agressors scenario".

I don't think time is a good indicator of a combat styles fitness if only for the fact that the lazy will always gravitate to the easiest answer and keep something going when its long lived past its usefulness. Fitness of a combat style is proven in combat. Not suprising the styles with the most problems stay away from this very simple test or they stay within the accepted halls and rule sets and only train against others who agree "this works".

I would Argue that Martial Arts are first and foremost about fighting and that in most cases the "art" aspect should be discarded. It gets in the way of the reasons the discipline was created and takes focus away from what is truly important. If you're not there to learn how to fight and protect yourself then why are you there? If its for art or spiritual advancement there are better venues (you can get both from a combat discipline but it isn't straight forward and is equally distracting) for learning both.

The opportunity cost is a decent way of looking at things. Again it depends on what your desired outcome is. If your goal is to get fit, learn something new and get confidence through that, play at fighting (point sparring), or live out some anime daydream then it really doesn't matter where you go or what you choose or how long you spend; just be honest in why you're there. If your goal is to learn how to fight/not fight, protect yourself with reasonable limits and become functional within a minimal amount of time by putting in the maximum amount of work then you have some serious decision making time.

My real opinion is that you need to not limit yourself to one discipline but you definately need to limit yourself only to those disciplines whose product meets your needs.

GE

 

Any martial art that does not let you spar live to a moderate degree is dog shit in terms of learning how to fight.

 

Ladon do you have any vid clips of akido fullcontact fights?
I would really like to see a akido proffecient fighter use it in some form in modern day mma, if only to see if it works.

Personally I think the martial art looks cool even if not effective,
i suppose thats where one area of the art side comes in, the knock on effect it being used for various fighting games, which if we're honest most of the styles potrayed in games are unrealistic they just look cool /versus/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[ QUOTE ]
GodEater said:
I would Argue that Martial Arts are first and foremost about fighting and that in most cases the "art" aspect should be discarded. It gets in the way of the reasons the discipline was created and takes focus away from what is truly important. If you're not there to learn how to fight and protect yourself then why are you there? If its for art or spiritual advancement there are better venues (you can get both from a combat discipline but it isn't straight forward and is equally distracting) for learning both.

The opportunity cost is a decent way of looking at things. Again it depends on what your desired outcome is. If your goal is to get fit, learn something new and get confidence through that, play at fighting (point sparring), or live out some anime daydream then it really doesn't matter where you go or what you choose or how long you spend; just be honest in why you're there. If your goal is to learn how to fight/not fight, protect yourself with reasonable limits and become functional within a minimal amount of time by putting in the maximum amount of work then you have some serious decision making time.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

However, I disagree that MA should just throw art away.

If you're worried about being beat up in the street daily, then maybe you should just carry a gun. Because honestly, even if you learn boxing or something and take on multiple people, they'll just come back the next day with a piece and kill you.

Learning MA is not just about beating people up, and it's not all utility. Likewise, someone only trained in grappling will be worthless against multiple people.

I think what Ladon is pointing at, is that MA can make you a more well rounded person because it challenges you in specific ways, and teaches you things about life. For someone who has already decided that they are right about everything they say, obviously something like MA is worthless.

Good luck.

 

Hey there,

I'll clarify what I wrote originally, I was on my way out the door and had to be as quick as possible so I wasn't entirely clear about my thoughts regarding the "art" aspect.

The "art" aspect is very poorly defined, I feel, primarily because of how subjective it is. People will recognize certain aspects of anything as having art while others might not see it as such. An example: I have a friend who believes that the letter “A†is the most perfect form, he has one mounted on the wall of his study and in his foyer camouflaged a series of them in the paint of the walls so that if you stand in the south-east corner you can see one HUGE letter “A†made up of the tiny, mostly hidden letters. He sees a wonder in a letter most don’t see at all. Art for my friend is in the most mundane. I love looking at things through his eyes because no matter how dull or boring something is the resonance that is waiting to be unpacked is unbelievable. It is also fun to watch him assault “gallery hags†by insisting that there is no high art, that anything produced that isn’t predicated on survival is art. Fun stuff.

Spirituality is within. We exist in an environment of signs and as interpretants we take those signs we see and unpack their meaning with a bias relative to our experience. We colour the meaning, even make it. No sign is pure in the unpacked, interpreted form, it certainly doesn’t remain unchanged. So what? When someone talks about the art of something I think that is something they create themselves. An object has value if it has utility for immediate survival (can it be used as a cup, a cutting tool, a piece of shelter, etc) outside of that there is no value that isn’t subjective and brought to bear by its interpretant.

A fighting discipline is created for one purpose only. It is explored, enhanced and made better for one purpose only. Fighting. To say otherwise would be disingenuous. I can, however, find deeper meaning within that purpose but that experience is singular and chaotic. I can relate my experience and others might nod their heads in agreement but while similarities abound experiences are profoundly singular. I find there is an unbelievable beauty in fighting. The economy of motion, the balance, power and stillness of mind is fascinating. Consider though, that for some people fighting is a means to hurt people or simply, an ugly thing. There is ballet there though.

When I say you should discard the art I mean that to focus on it as a primary motivator is to remove or discredit the martial, the first purpose. To insist on the art over the martial is to go against its purpose. In these instances you make useless the purpose and destroy its utility. One can find spiritual satisfaction (in fact, I believe it cannot help but happen unless you fight it) within a fighting discipline but don’t believe that it was made with your spiritual development or Art in mind. It was not. To be honest, if must not.

Zen does not exist in thieving but men can find Zen awakening in theft.

 

Yeah, that's about as eloquent shit gets on the internet.

 

word

 

[ QUOTE ]
GodEater said:
Zen does not exist in thieving but men can find Zen awakening in theft.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an interesting thought, is that a quote or something you came up with? I wonder why theft was the choice here, I believe it can be substituted by any other activity. I've always had a similar conclusion to the question of purpose and direction in people's lives. It's amazing that people don't realize such higher levels of the mind exists all around us.

 

whats even more amazing is some people do and don't even care,
but yeah agreed proper eloquent shit GE

 

[ QUOTE ]
Srider said:

That's an interesting thought, is that a quote or something you came up with? I wonder why theft was the choice here, I believe it can be substituted by any other activity. I've always had a similar conclusion to the question of purpose and direction in people's lives. It's amazing that people don't realize such higher levels of the mind exists all around us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I used theft just to get out from under the context of fighting. The quote is my own, I guess, but I was thinking of an old story about how a man is instructing his son in the art of burglary. At the end the boy has an epiphany and is enlightened.

I agree with you.

GE

 

GodEater you're absolutely correct. It's still hard for me to see Aikido as being completely useless, but as a martial art that stands on its own, I’ve come to the conclusion (not just from what you've pointed out, but through my own scrutinizing as well) that it doesn't have what it takes. What you said about not limiting oneself to a single discipline, but to limit yourself to the disciplines you could make use of... in that I think Aikido training can be very useful, especially when you don't want to kill your opponent.

And there, I think, is where Aikido is different from most martial arts. It came from Aiki-jiu-jitsu and was derived from it to make a less martial style. The motivation for its development was to defeat a foe without hurting them. In that, Aikido has definitely taken the step down from being as martial as other MAs... and as such, probably shouldn't be in the list of styles considered for a street fight. /versus/images/graemlins/grin.gif