I think the kind iof behaviour talked about in the closed thread (and seemingly proud of it) is indicative of the whole no competition part of the art, it breeds insecurities and self-importance into people and encourages a self-inflated view of their own importance and skills. It usually comes down to people believing “I know the real art and practise it properly and you don’t”, and “I have trained for so long so I know more than you and I had a proper teacher and you didn’t” and ends up with them thinking they are better than others and therefore don’t respect them, and can make these cheap shots because there is no come back You don’t get the same kind of attitude in arts that have a competition format or that spar hard and often because its hard to have a self-inflated ego when you are being tapped out, thrown or knock down by people half your size and with half your training time, and its hard to argue you have the correct teaching and someone else doesn’t when said someone and his students are mopping the floor with the competition at every event they go to Im not saying their arts egos in those arts, im saying its hard to feel self-important or have a self-inflated view of yourself when regularly testing yourself against others
I think the same thing about Duncs thread where he puts up videos of himself, and people critique the crap out of him and then they reference Hatsumi videos (and I'm sorry but some of those are just terrible). They post nothing of them doing it, and never ever EVER doing it under any pressure (I'm not even talking about randori or sparring, but something like Simulation). Just annoying. Sorry, that's the last time I'll complain about it.
Sorry, but I beg to differ. There is ALWAYS COMPETITION in good martial arts, if not then it's always cooperation, which is the case for the majority of aikido videos there. The missing link is 'competition FOR WHAT GOAL?'. For most of us, competition is associated with an external prize (which includes something OUT of your group). But if uke does not compete with the tori to find holes in his game (which tori must compete to do his best not to get those holes exploited), there will be no progress. And therein lies the problem. HOW GOOD DOES AIKIDO TRAINS ITS STUDENTS IN OFFENCE? As I've said before in another site "STUPID ATTACKS MAKE FOR STUPID DEFENSE". You wouldn't need 3 inch steel plate and chobam armor on your MBT if all they're lobbing at you are frickin tomatoes (no IEDs inside, please!). How often does an average aikidoka go out of his school and train with practitioners of "offence-oriented" arts? Cuz if he can't get good attacks in his own dojo, where would he get it? And this problem is not only for aikido, certain arts have it too (ninjutsu and wing chun comes to mind). No need to apologize (even as a j/k). IMO sumo is the base for aikido (and many unarmed indigenous japanese arts), the same as the game tag is the base for majority of the team ball sports around (basketball, football, soccer, rugby). Feel the same too. I'll post over there if I can, too bad my post count wouldn't let me. It's because there is a DISSONANCE between the BUNKAI/MECHANICS of the waza/techniques of the kata and the bunkai/mechanics of waza in application. The bunkai of application is only properly learned though, well, application itself. How much you can shorten it, cut corners, vary certain aspects while still retaining its efficacy (read: HEURISTICS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic) is only learned by those who have been there, done that and got the t-shirt. They can pass on the lessons, yes, but for the student to intuitively understand (and more importantly, ACCEPT) those is to go through the same experiences himself. The question is, how many practitioners have done that? When generations pass without somebody getting the shirt, can anyone remember the shirt at all? IMO it is what old school/koryu arts try to to with kata. They try to, for lack of a better term, brainwash/groom you to see and accept WHY their PREFERENCES(principles, setups, techniques) are superior/effective. They try to instill in you a habit in which , as time passes in consitent practice, you will deem their method as the one you will PREFER when encountered with a certain situation. They are not a catalog of techniques, like say judo. It is more like 10th planet jj (in which the rubber guard IS superior). To paraphrase Ellis Amdur: you (your personality, behaviour,culture aka your PREFERENCES) do not become the ryu(school/style), the ryu BECOMES you (you are molded by the preferences of the ryu, the old you that was pre-ryu is now gone). And aikido is steeped in old-school culture due to ueshiba. The question remains: how good do they do it? While still retaining efficacy in the fast-changing modern times? That relies on how many still has the "t-shirt". And I've personally never seen one, even on video. Icefield: tried to pm you but seems I can't.
Lack of competition is a red herring. I wouldn't be surprised that the root issue isn't in the specialization of martial arts. I talked years ago with one of my instructors who was able to link just about every fault in martial arts to specialization. So, for example, BJJ specializes in ground and submission skill sets. Boxing is specialized. MMA, on the other hand, is much less specialized. An issue with Aikido is that it has become a very specialized martial art. Many Aikidoka have become so specialized, they struggle to adjust to any opponent that does not think and act the same as they do. How did Aikido survive its specialization in the old days? For starters, it was not so specialized, but even so, many cross-trained or came from other martial arts thus bringing variety and other skill sets into play. Specialization is not bad. If you needed brain surgery, you would want a specialist in brain surgery to operate on you. On the other hand, if you needed a cavity filled, you would want a dentist. Then again, if you were the only doctor in town, even if you were a brain surgeon, to help others, you would need to be well versed as a general practice doctor. There may be a general lack of understanding of the pros and cons of specialization in martial arts. I heard stories and have seen martial artists doing things to win in competition that would almost never be considered something one would want to do in a real fight. Yet, because they can abuse the rule set, they not only get away with it, they then teach it to others, promoting some really specialized moves that only work in competition under a very limited set of rules. In Aikido, this specialization sometimes cause students to be able to dance around and get away with technique that probably would almost never work that way in real situations. This is because the purpose of specialization is not understood. Specialization is so that you can get really good at something useful... e.g. BJJ does this. The specialization is Aikido is to understand a few specific combat principles and use the understanding of them to understand other principles. Part of this is to allow tori to experience the full range of a technique. Uke performs ukemi to allow this to happen and to protect themselves. But there is more to it. Here are some misconceptions with some of my counter points: 1) Uke is just allowing tori to perform technique... Incorrect, uke is really trying to steal the technique from tori. 2) Uke is using counters to show tori where there are openings in tori's technique... Only partially correct, uke is learning/feeling when is the correct time to counter. 3) Tori must blend with uke... Incorrect, tori must make uke blend. Tori does appear to blend in practice, but this is just for learning purposes. Actually tori is constantly to keep uke off balance... this is not exactly blending, is it. 4) Aikido must use atemi to be successful... Only partially correct, Aikido is a specialization. To deal with areas outside the specialization, Aikidoka must cross-train and become proficient in "general practice" fundamentals and skill sets to complement the specialization... this WILL include atemi. These are my opinions.
Actually I think you are wrong, I think competition isn’t a red herring it’s the root cause of the issues you bring up BJJ is specialised as you say but no one doubts it works under pressure in the environment its designed for and works exactly the way it is trained, boxing is also specialized as you say, but again no one doubts its effectiveness of its training methods for the environment its designed for No one also doubts that these specialized arts can also be made to work outside those environments with very little adjustment, be it on the street or in another competition format, but most here doubt aikido on all the above and have yet to see anything that makes them change their minds And the points you raise are again in my opinion caused by the lack of competition both inside and outside of their school, no one has to tell a boxer or a judo how to be a good training partner, or how they should train to make their art effective, its something you pick up in your first class because of said competition inside and outside the class You don’t see them arguing about how a training partner should act, or about who has the correct boxing training methods or judo training methods, or about who has the correct lineage and thus who is training the right way. I have only ever seen anything like that once in a competition based art, and that was in BJJ with the whole clear water argument put forward by the torrence school, they argued they had the correct training methods, they were the only real lineage and know how to train etc and you didn’t need to compete to get the real BJJ and guess what they didn’t compete outside their school, as soon as they had an open competition with their cousins and lost all this rubbish stopped
That is a good point actually. Arts that don't produce people "able to defend themselves against an attacker" ( I can't think of another way to describe them) often argue about who is training correctly, or who has the correct knowledge. Very prevelant in arts that don't emphasis difficult resistance. Aikido, Ninjutsu and Wing Chun being the worst offenders. Obviously in those arts there are a few who produce results, but they are rare and it's disappointing. Like I said in the other aikido thread, if I could learn the aikido that the judo champion was so impressed with, I'd be doing it no hesitation. Wing Chun, Ninjutsu etc are no different. If it was effective, I'd be doing it.
I couldn't be bothered to read all the posts - so this has probably already been said - but the OP said "I don't understand why it is so widespread that many arts including Aikido don't participate in full-contact free sparring. " Well, a LOT of arts are not about competitions or 'fighting'' they are about personal protection (self defence) - in those cases, you as the 'victim' are very likely to be able to get all sorts of things to work (including joint locks) because you are NOT fighting you are simply (OK not simply...) doing one or two quick and easy things to make your attacker have a really really bad day... Full contact - is generally not a good idea for most people anyway - why risk greater injury in training than you are going to encounter in 'the real world'...?
So why have someone you trust come at you in a controlled environment because it will be worse than having some muppet come at you who wants to curb stomp you? Is that what you are saying? Also the self defence angle doesn't work as many TMA are not really geared towards modern self defence. Standing joint locks wouldn't come under the easy heading either, it's more about setting them up within a given context than them being easy to execute.
That’s the whole point with lack of competition though (for me at least) it means the art largely dies off after the first generation because people don’t have anywhere to hone their skills and nothing to keep the art on track as it was originally taught Kanos judo principles and art is still alive and well 100 years later because of the strong completion focus of the art, the art evolved in a way maybe he didn’t want because of that competition focus (its the same with GJJ and BJJ) but that is a danger for all sports which have rules, but the alternative would have been IMO much worse it would have been to go like aikido has gone, with no one able to demonstrate the skill of the arts founder and first few students and no one able to make the art work like it was meant to
You should. The whole argument is that it is difficult, not easy. And that practice under more realistic pressure will make you see that. Especially if you visit a bjj/boxing whatever 'dojo' and not just your aikido buddy with no training in said matters. Yeah, cause the very big crowd of practitioners practicing under pressure around the globe is constantly in and out of the hospital. And no you don't necessarily need full contact to up your game. Just more live pressure. You don't need to look like a bloody pulp to get better at what you do.
Most of self defence is really just about avoiding it in the first place. I can't think of many martial arts schools that focus heavily on that. So if your school isn't teaching like 90% theory and scenario training, then your argument is already collapsing on itself.
The problem is that the two camps tend not to have a lot of cross-over - the 'FULL CONTACT' camp and the 'Let's talk about legal and moral issues' camp... Yes I know JWT does it, but with compromise - and I am sure there are others - but they are in the minority... I have been teaching a middle ground of theory and practice for many years... However I rarely do any sparring - I have enjoyed in the distant past, semi-contact (Lau Gar) and in recent years Ju-Jutsu and TKD sparring - but that is all just for fun - it does NOT improve your self defence skills as much as a lot of people suggest. It teaches a confrontational approach to fighting which is rule based and NOT what you want for self defence.
I agree that self defense is a subject in itself and not equal to ma. But now we are discussing ma for self defense. So if you are interested in sd you are already aware of the distinction, and the ma you do (if you do it for sd) is only supplemental. And you are the one dragging ma in to the matter of sd.
Being a begginer in tomoki aikido, I have to say the dojo I am a part of (despite not doing competition) engages in light/medium control sparring. Though not perfect it already shows how many techniques can be applied in certain situations. I understand the people here advocating competition and I can say that I agree with them partially. Competition has its merits. But it is not a certified way to produce results. In my view, controled free sparring is better and heavy sparring better yet. I guess what I'm trying to say is that normal karate kumite is not a good way to learn self defense or how to handle myself properly in a fight. The more traditional controled sparring (I would regularly come out bruised and battered) was much better even though it wasn't a competition.
I wouldn't say hard sparring is the best for everyone. I only spar hard training for a fight. Other than that I'll spar hard maybe once every fortnight, and many consider that too much. Light/medium and FAST is much more benificial in the long run. Does your dojo have any videos of the sparring sessions? Aikido sparring always fascinates me. There's only one video I've ever seen where I thought "I'd train there".
Can you remember where you saw it, who ran the class, if it was a demo or anything else? I'd be interested in seeing what they did that got your interest.
Very good point - not all competition is created equal. I think the key is honest resistance. Rebel Wado had a point about specialisation - if a point system or esoteric philosophy or traditional etiquette forces you to change your body's honest instincts (at whatever technical level you are at), then I feel your training is a hindrance to real world physical intervention and defence.
