Against boxing

This was my answer to a hook. I haven't thought of anything else yet.

An uppercut I think would be especially difficult to deal with. Personaly I would use an uppercut in extreme close range which means it's coming from below the oponents field of vision. Other than getting my head out the way I'm not sure how I would deal with this.

A longer range uppercut could be dealt with by applying kotegeaeshi. Although that will require the ability to redirect the considerable momentum behind the punch. This could possibly be done by blending with the direction of the punch and taking the boxer into a high kotegaeshi.

Since combinations include all of the above it's tempting to say, deal with the first punch in the set as above. However combinations can also include dummies designed to make you make your move, setting you up to be planted. Awareness is the Aikidokas greatest weapon here. You must be able to spot the dummy and resist taking the bate.

 

i don't know if i'd be good enough to time the hook with that technique. a yokomen strike is not the same as a hook, it's slower and the elbow is much more exposed.

i was shown a randori technique the other day against a yokomen that i bet would be decent for a hook.

basically, the assumption is that you don't have time to move back out of the way and you need to get away from a second attacker.

so, you would actually duck under and to the outside of the strike (we're assuming "uke" is striking with the right hand) as you move under the strike you would place your palm (right hand) on uke's stomach. now you are position slightly behind the striking arm side, as you stand back up to full height your left hand would come onto uke's shoulder to keep him from turning back into you and your right hand travels up the torso to the chin. to finish the tech, step behind him with your right leg (maintaining contact with your leg against his) sink your weight through his shoulder and move your palm (against his chin or extend past his opposite side shoulder) toward the floor in a circular motion.

BAM, the duck-under irimi. Probably the most important part of the technique is getting your left hand in a good position on the shoulder and sinking your weight.

btw, obviously all this is done is matter of a couple of seconds and its a continuous, fluid motion

 

While a yokomen strike is not the same as a hook there is a good deal of similarity in the movement. How exposed the elbow is and how fast the strike is made depends on the uke.

As a yellow belt an eskimo at the north pole could have seen my yokomen strikes comming all the way from scotland. But now I've advanced a bit since then my strikes are refined to a single step to attack with very little telegraphing. When attacking grades higher than me, I strike as fast and as hard as I can since they don't need me to hold anything back.

I think I've seen this technique being done somewhere (a video perhaps). It looks like a fairly effective technique. However I don't like the use of the leg to help take uke down.

As soon as you to start to use your legs to trip people, you are restricting your ability to move freely. I think there is a danger you could become entangled with uke and taken down into a grappling situation. This is a particualry important consideration if you have multiple attackers. Which brings me to my next point.

I think for a situation where you're faced with two attackers this technique would be too longwinded. Personaly I'd cut it shorter.

After ducking I'd take my left hand directly to ukes forehead to tilt his head back. My right hand would help by taking ukes neck. I'd then take him straight down. This places a lot of pressure on the spine, hips, knees and ankles and is particualry unpleasant. Your legs are also left clear allowing you to turn and move quickly to deal with the second attacker.

Assuming only one attacker another alternative would be to throw an over head punch to the boxers chin as you duck and move in. Then go for the left kidney as your standing up. Then finish as above.

 

good points,

the reason i maintain contact with the leg is not to trip, but to keep them from turning their hips back in

i also like your idea with regards to head/ neck control

[edit] forgot to add, if you do the technique as i illustrated above it makes a good transition to a standing scarf choke if they resist the throw. if you get the throw you can apply the same submission hold or an armbar would be very easy to get as you already have a 2 on 1 situation on his right arm.

 

I've been going to Aikido class for about 2 weeks.

3 days ago I had a talk with a 3rd kiu about the effectiveness of Aikdo agains boxing. I was just inquiring how would he go about dealing with them. His basic response was "Striking arts arent as effective as grappling arts. And tae kwoan do sucks". At that point realized what kinda person I was talking to -- "My art is the best and everyone else's suck". I was very dissapointed to hear words like that. He said "tae kwoan do is nothing but a sport, people shouldn't use kicks in a fight". It's sad to know that sometimes we train with people like this.

 

There are a lot of idiots that train in martial arts. Some have their own schools and (at least can appear to) high rankings. You still have to exercise your sense of discrimination when choosing a training method and group. If it ain't right for you, go find something that is . . .

 

People need to realise its not the attack that matters in Aikido, its the angle of attack that relates to reality. Of course a boxers hook can be treated the same as yokomen. but you have to train as hard at awaze training as a boxer does at punching. PLus with a boxer you will get one chance so its straight in with the kill to the neck aswell as receiving the hook.
I train with a boxer who is solid, And he truly believes in Aikido because of Awaze, and can see exactly how to deal with a boxer.

I think alot of people find it hard to believe that a non fighter can still be a martail artist and still beat a fighter

 

Does anyone have any relevant sparring experiences? The problem with discussions like this is that they can turn into chess matches. I name a technique. You name a technique that (on the chess board) would counter it. But discussion can't account for all the variables of timing, angle, etc.

So does anyone have any practical experience as either a boxer or an aikidoka sparring either a boxer or an aikidoka? (i.e., Not "I got this to work on a friend of mine who likes to punch. That's related, but not closely enough.)

Just curious.


Stuart

 

Most people that have not trained boxing don't throw hooks the same way a boxer does.

There is a big difference between a swing and a hook.

You also miss the set ups. For the most part a boxer would not through a hook as an initial strike. They are also not generally thrown when standing straight in front of you.

These discussions are really kinda silly.

If you want to find out how well Aikido works against a boxer go find some boxers and train with them.

Trying to work against boxing techniques when you haven't trianed boxing is like a boxing gym deciding to work against aikido one day, when none of them have ever stepped into a aikido class.

 

Andrew and Oweyn,

Good points from both. Just a couple things:

1. It is much easier for someone trained in aikido to emulate boxing than it would be for a trained boxer to attempt to use aikido against another boxer. Make sense?

2. Regardless of what punches are thrown or how they are thrown the aikido counter doesn't change much. Aikido, as complicated as it looks and seems at first, goes for the path of least resistance. In other words, going away from or going into the attack from the side or stepping behind.

3. Supposing I decide to do some sparring with a trained boxer. I know I am going to get hit, especially once he figures out my general strategy. Strictly following the aikido principles, I allow him to tap out of all pins and locks without injuring him. So the result is that I get beat up and he gets nothing. I don't think so.
Conversely, how many boxers will go into something like this knowing that the aikidoka is trying to break a wrist or elbow or possilby twist a knee on an irmi? Probably not many.
That's the point of locks and pins, the fight is over at that point. Allowing the boxer to continually tap out practically assures that the effectiveness of the aikido is going to decrease as the match progresses. Not to mention getting hit in the head time after time.

 

He'll be a little while in replying, he's been sin binned.

 

No. That's the thing. It doesn't make sense. The question was never "how would an aikidoka handle punching?" The question was how they'd handle a boxer. So there's an inherent acknowledgment that boxers are good at what they do. They aren't just punchers. Boxing's footwork, timing, angles, and strategy are quite complex. And it sells boxing short to say that an aikidoka "emulating" a boxer would approximate the real thing. More to the point, it doesn't really answer the question. It only really answers the question, "what would an aikidoka do against another aikidoka who was forced to use moves outside of his main repetoire?" And that doesn't really make much sense.

That's why I emphasized sparring experience though. The question is not whether aikido theory has a logical response to boxing theory. I have no doubt that it does. But actual exchanges aren't driven by theory. They're driven by performance. It doesn't matter if the angles are the same if when the boxer throws that angle, it's better timed, more powerful, and in combination. Those are the sorts of things that a realistic response will have to account for.

That's a fair point. But it could very readily be hashed out beforehand. You could easily agree on a lower level of contact for learning purposes, stop when the boxer hits the ground (just to indicate that you were able to take him down), etc. The point is not that the boxer get to use his style to it's full potential while you get hobbled in yours. Simply seeing if you can apply your moves against full speed-no contact would be a big step in the right direction. Don't you think?


Stuart

 

excellent post stuart.

i agree with pretty much everything you said. i think another important thing to consider would be huge variations in styles of boxing.

using aikido against someone that is predominantly a counter puncher would be much different that against a boxer who like to jab and play position.

in a general sense, once again, the aikido strategy does not have a ton of variation.

 

Cheers aikinoob. I appreciate it.

Yeah, that's a really good point. So experiences with one boxer wouldn't be completely generalizable to all of them.

No? (My experience of aikido isn't nil, but it's pretty damn close.)


Stuart

 

well, for my limited experience (3 years) here goes.

in aikido, the assumption is that there will be a linear movement in my direction as the attacker comes after me.

ex. (me)-------(attacker)
in order for the attacker to hit me, he has to come down that line.
now the assumption is that i have four directions in which to move. diagonal forward or backward on either the left side or the right side, depending on the angle/ speed of attack. generally going backwards is bad and going forward results in a loss of leverage and degenerates into a contest of strength. just for illustration purposes we'll assume a right hook. my movement would be a shuffle step diagonally forward, blocking the hook with my left arm in his right elbow, my right hand extends to find his left and my personal preference is to deflect/ push his left hand down. once to this position there are a bunch of techniques that i can go for to attempt the takedown.

as you can see, depending on what movement you make initially, there can be a myriad of options but the overall strategy is pretty much the same no matter what movement you make

 

I see what you mean. Well, for whatever it's worth, I think there's plenty there that's applicable against a boxer. Just a question of tweaking the variables. Know what I mean?

 

yeah, unfortunately that's the difficult part.

later.

 

Tis that, my friend.