Aikido against modern attacks.

Izu and others can spout all they want regarding Ki and how combat sports are irrelevant to high level advanced 25th dan Soke Shihan quoting obscure references and other mumbo-jumbo; but no-one is going to fall for any of that BS.

One key Aikido principle that Izu is absolutely top class at: Evasion - get out of the line of fire ASAP, and avoid direct questions with direct answers, at all costs.

 

C'mon mate.. you're playing his game by his rules.

 

Not at all

 

Izumizu,

You see it in a few arts.

Generally it's simple structure and alignment working against specific points on the other person.

I can do it, got shown it years ago funnily enough first by a Wing Chun exponent then by teachers from other arts over the years. Always though in the context of "this is simple body structure" etc never anything mystical.

If you want to see it in a book it's covered in Essence of Ninjutsu by Massaki Hatsumi, it's in there under a specific section on tricks and "illusions".

 

Yes.. you do. lol

 

Perhaps

 

Boxing was never a combat art trained for use by armies on the battlefield and then used as sport. Boxing does not have a meditative or spiitual side to it. Boxing does not encompass use of the entire body as a mode of self defense or martial application the way other martial systems do. Boxing is not derived from any orher martial system such as judo derived from juijutsu used for sport, nor derived from there BJJ also used for sport. Boxing does not have a trained offensive or defensive weapons component to it.

@Giovani
not hardly, just an overall asessment made from the responses here on the aikido threads which clearly show limited understanding of principles and focus primarily on technique and for the most part limited time in training. Yes with more time in training, principles will become more apparent. But this is in correct training, continued correct training. Training in technique alone, even after 50 years is not sufficient.

 

That statement right there sums up the entirety of your contribution to MAP and your understanding of martial arts. How else does one "box"? In fact please just leave. Stop posting. Go away.

 

Neither does aikido in the truest sense.

Aikiken and Aikijo are tools for the development of the hand art, they are far removed from their combative origins.

Ironic.. that.. coming from a troll.

4.5 Trolling/ Inciting Conflict:
"Trolling" or making posts with the intention of creating problems on the forums is obviously against the forum guidelines.

That's all you ever really achieve here, you post just within the guidelines of the TOS despite some of the ridiculously things you state.

Let me remind you and anyone else who cares exactly what your modus operandi is:

 

I've snipped the bits I think are relevant and because I'm typing this on an iPod!

The last part also refers to the prize fights that developed alongside the art.

Needless to say the section contains a lot more on the topic including its development due to self defence reasons etc


Izumizu,

For a modern take on the art as it can relate to self defence I suggest you read the works of Geoff Thompson one of the UK's leading self defence experts.

 

neither is karate

nor does karate (and yes, I'm fully aware of the rich weapons traditions of okinawa and the fact that many karate practitioners trained with these weapons - but these weapons are separate and additional martial traditions to karate.)


Thank you, I hadn't realised karate wasn't a martial art.


(or, maybe your definition of a martial art may be ....incorrect? )



And yes, I realise this is an aikido forum, but since boxing was brought up, I thought "what the hey..."

 

correct training? izumizi-ha!

 

This is really getting old Izu. You are the one that is most of the time "showing limited understanding of principles and focus primarily on technique and for the most part limited time in training."

The reason is that you are the one that seems to be unable to demonstrate any practical experience of principles in action. Instead, you demonstrate theoritical knowledge for the most part. For example, you probably could be a great teacher to help people understand the importance of the principle of relaxation through meditation and exercises. This is valuable.

However, when it comes down to applying the principle of relaxation under situations of pressure, under fire... you fail to demonstrate any practical experience... this is very hard to believe because there must have been times along your life and in training where you have been under pressure.

It's like you haven't had any life experiences to test yourself.

"Forge ten thousand swords" is what you have not been able to demonstrate, Izu. Not even forging a few swords. Why forge so many swords? Because each one builds on the perfection of the ones before, each one takes into account the failings of the ones before.

This is the forging of the body and spirit. One step back, two steps forward. Knocked down seven times, get up eight!

Unfortunately, you come off as untested. This makes it difficult for me to take you seriously at times. Remember there must be balance between the manifest and hidden worlds.

Show that you have some practical understanding of the manifest world enough that there is balance between the manifest and the hidden.

How is it that certain more recent translations leave out the bolded text above?

Could it be that they are trying to change the message? Maybe it was thought that to say "seek enlightenment along the edge" was too "war like" for the "art of peace"? So in order to make people think only of peace, they left off the statement from the quote.

Everything has a context.

 

Karate has been taught to military units.

Karate does have a defensive component specifically trained in dealing with armed opponents.

Dave, aikido also has, specifically defensive components trained in dealing with armed opponents.

Boxing does not even have a system or category of skill set trained to result in immobilization, unconsciousness, breaks, or death.

Yes, getting hit may or may not result in any of those, but it is not specifically trained in that regard, with the knowledge of targeting vital organs, and difficult to determine if any of those will result, or which ones from the first, or tenth, or sixtieth blow.

Judo, which has specifically a component that trains let's say for instance choking techniques, cam infact implement, administer, and apply a simple choke that can verifiably, and within seconds lead to anyone of these, or all of them if desired. Also each of these can be implemented and controlled to the degree of the desired outcome.

Many martial systems have deadly and real techniques resulting in death or unconsciousness as their goal, techniques that are designed to yeild those results as quickly as possible, and trained to that end.

Any of the sutemi waza in judo, juijutsu, or even aikido if done with slight modification will result in the attacker breaking their neck before their feet/legs land on the ground.

Boxing has none of this.

 

@Dave
mo in what? Martial arts planet? Now that's a laugh. I can't help it if you do not like the substance of my posts, or lack thereof in your opinion, however, that description was from an event in wich my life or the lives of those nearby me were at risk.

I hardly feel I am in any danger here on map to warrant that which you keep referring to as any kind of m.o.

And besides, I also will point out that this discussion is still quite open, and far from going down any kind of path you may percieve as threatening to yourself or the MAP community...right?

 

@dean
hardly the boxing common today. Hardly the training undertaken in gyms. Arming oneself with unpadded weapons, and employing them with the kind of skill evident in martial systems hardly makes for comparrison in a trained martial art.

Self defense does not a martial art make, either.

Still nice post though.

 

@rebel
I do not need to demonstrate any principles in action at all, and whether or not I have actually been forged an tested along any edge, remains with me. No I will not post video of me being forged and tested applying whichever principles I choose to highlight here on MAP. Nor will I post any photos with my face blotched out highlighting a technique, or any in which my uke grimaces in pain...or smiles in delight.

What good would it do anyways, when I refer folks to the very principles in action on a 2 or 5 minute Steven Segal video to deal with the very situation you describe in your post, and you don't even take the time to look at that and provide a timestamp?

There is only one time in which that as you describe specifically comes up. Is Segal not employing any aikido principles in motion at all there? Can you not see it and recognize it for yourself?

 

Boxing has been used to teach military units unarmed combat. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga4zLsMmkE0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga4zLsMmkE0[/ame]

 

Izu, do you train like how Steven Seagal demonstrates in this video? The training at around 4:30+ is good training. I'm not making a joke... that is good stuff to see.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH6HtkySiCQ"]YouTube - Steven Seagal - Master Of The Aikido[/ame]

The issue, Izu, is the lack of initiative to demonstrate the opposite of what you say. You ask "Is Segal not employing any aikido principles in motion at all there? Can you not see it and recognize it for yourself?"

This is rear end backwards talk, IMHO. The forward question should be something like, "Is Seagal not employing any principles in motion that do not also exist in other martial arts?"

Principles are not unique to Aikido. Aikido is in the study of Budo.

You only seem to take the initiative to post on one side of a discussion. Even if what you say is good, which I think it is at times. You don't seem to have balance between the manifest and hidden worlds. Is it so hard for you to see principles in what others do or are you trapped in the mindset that you only see technique?

Try to turn around your statements and take the other point of view. Then that is demonstration of principles in action.

Izu also posted this:

What you said was maybe a bit hurtful, but at the same time the message in general terms is true for many. I know of martial artists that trained for years, then they found out in a bad way that they could not fight. They came back to the instructor and said, how come you gave us black belt and we can't fight? The instructor, who could actually fight, came back with something of a stinger... he said, you never told me you wanted to learn to fight. You came to class and wanted to learn techniques and get your black belt. You didn't want to train full contact, you wanted to train with light or no contact. You got exactly what you wanted. Now if you want to learn to fight, I can teach that to you but it will not be easy. Of the five of them, only one of them could take the training. The others dropped out within a few week. The one that stayed, trained many more years, trained hard, and didn't have to learn to fight because the training made him a fighter.

On the other hand, what you said to me and Giovani is also rear end backwards, IMHO. Because when someone trains with full contact, rolling, randori, or whatever equivalent there is to that based on the type of training they aren't interested in technique, they are interested in perfecting technique. Perfecting technique is in the fundamentals and principles.

So the only way to train technique only and not train in principles is if you become complacent and really don't care to perfect technique. This is the issue with the perception in many Aikido schools from outsiders. They see Aikidoka as training in a matter than really does not perfect technique, instead they live in a fantasy land where they just go through the motion of technique but never really test it out. Ukes and tori are both the same and train the same to always do the same things.

So the mindset of perfecting technique is to test it out, to make it practical application. The mindset of neglecting technique because of complacency is that of a problem because claims are made to understand principles, but the truth is, how can they understand something if they cannot demonstrate the understanding.

I'm not asking for video proof Izu, and I know you have posted video before so I caught your sneaky statement about never doing that. Ha ha. I'm asking for you to demonstrate the understanding of principles by describing how they apply to other martial arts. Like describe how or when does Kuzushi apply to kick boxing.

 

Thanks, boards, though judging from the looks of it, I don't think it's combat application is as practical as the judo used in the same video when dealing with a boxer.

This was probably taught as a form of sport, and had nothing to do with combat effectiveness or application. This was also probably taught as a confidence booster, however from a combat and martial application, the judo and at times juijutsu taught to these troops is more efficient on the battlefield.

That is one of the things that makes martial arts martial arts. It is not about trading blows, which can take precious time(and in some sports you want it to take time for the sake of spectators), but the application of technique and principle that renders a combatant incapable of continuing a fight within seconds.

In anycase, it is highly possible that those that train troops for war, for hand to hand combat do not spend time training boxers these days because, simply put, boxing is not a martial art that serves a practical martial purpose.