isnt the answer usually , our art is too deadly for sparring as it would result in injury and or unicorns, whilst boxers are beating each other up and bjj guys are rolling around doing something constructive
a truth i seen in this is a karate guy, say a hard art, who now teaches what on the outside, tai chi, soft art, but the power generated, by body mechanics not some magical force becomes just as hard as a hard art if not more so
You will hear that sometimes but several Akido practitioners have posted here and we haven't heard "too deadly to spar" yet! :happy: As already noted the systems founder was against it and many practitioners abstain because of that.
When I first started cross training in Aikido in the early 1990s, I felt like I had graduated high school (black belt in karate) and now I was in college (training in Aikido). It seemed to me that I had discovered the answer in cross-training. While cross-training is an answer, I have since come to other conclusions thanks to the words of other martial artists. Grandmaster Jay Burkey of the Tum Pai branch of Kajukenbo told me years ago that soft style takes the longest to learn, so why not start the teachings on day one? This brought me back to my first day in Aikido, I was shown the "twenty year" technique because it takes 20 years to perfect it. I believe it was Iriminage as a demonstration of kokyu nage (breath throw). So I realized the answer was there in Aikido the whole time. If we go back a hundred years, before martial arts became so specialized, many martial arts were said to be complete arts. Kung Fu for example was a complete art. How this was accomplished is of much importance to understand how specialization fit within a complete art. A hundred years ago, it would not be unusual for a kung fu student to have many coaches. There would be the boxing coach, the wrestling coach, the weapons coach... and there would be the head coach (head instructor). The boxing coach, for example, would be really good at boxing, but he also would know wrestling and weapons... overall kung fu. This is what Aikido needs to be a complete art. An Aikido student needs to have a boxing/karate coach that also is proficient in Aikido, a wrestling/Judo coach that also is proficient in Aikido, and weapons coach that also is proficient in Aikido. And a head coach that knows all the specialized areas but is particularly proficient in Aikido. The key is that it is not cross-training in different arts, it is getting specialized training in different arts, but still working towards the bigger picture of developing Aikido.
Kung Fu isn't a martial art though. It's a Chinese term used to describe anything that requires dedicated study to learn and perfect. In the western world it is a catch all term for a whole range of styles and systems of Chinese martial arts. And by your logic it still seems as though Aikidoka still need to cross train. Because going by the overwhelming evidence on YouTube, (which is now seemingly the martial arts Bible), Aikidoka just aren't getting this "specialized" training you're talking about.
I so want this to happen one day. I would agree that cross training can contribute massive advantages to your Aikido training, but it's also fair to say that cross training in pretty much any art can benefit pretty much any art.
my opinion on cross training , punch (decent power) , kick, grab, bite chunks outa em, if not hit em with a bit of wood
I probably could have used the term, Chinese boxing instead of Kung Fu. Although weapons could be involved, boxing was the basis for much of it. Cross training can help with any martial art. So the answer is yes to cross training. I was trying to get beyond cross training as the default answer. The default answer is more, "cross-train in a competitive martial art". By cross training in a competitive martial art, you get more bang for the buck. Unless we want to go back to challenge matches from 100 years ago I like this story of Mitsuyo Maeda as a good example of why specializations get developed in martial arts (in this case the development of BJJ): [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0fH_8kv7ac"]MITSUYO MAEDA: The Origin of BJJ - YouTube[/ame] Aikido had something similar with Koichi Tohei: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vigQ9S_srPc"]Koichi Tohei 10th Dan - Rare Aikido Demonstration (1957) - YouTube[/ame] Tohei was very good. He could make much of Aikido work without the need for overt atemi. How is it that Maeda led to BJJ, which is limited (specialized) but still regarded as one of the best martial arts. However, Tohei led to the path of Ki - Aikido, something regarded by many as nonsense? Is it the lack of competition or something more? I have some idea that it is more.
I thought I would answer my own question. O'Sensei Morihei Ueshiba, for lack of a better word, was feisty. He was also very strong for being under five foot tall. He had killer instinct. When he executed technique, there was little doubt that he could seriously hurt you if you strayed from the given path. This to me is a valuable lesson in martial arts. Take exhibit A, this video of Aikido... the words are flowery, but the training is very martial. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESQVjZdv_rI"]Aikido Techniques - Morihei Ueshiba æ¤èŠ 盛平 - Old Japanese Documentary PART 2/2 - YouTube[/ame] Koichi Tohei, on the other hand, is a technician. His technique is excellent and he "dances" like a professional. He does not instill the killer instinct that O'Sensei did. I should know this, because I too am a technician. When I fought competitively, there were times I struggled to finish off a "helpless" opponent. I came to accept that basically I'm a nice guy. I have had many years to figure out how to avoid this internal conflict. How to finish strongly because I believe it is the right thing to do. Most importantly, to use only technique that I feel is reasonable for the situation. Enough about me. When someone has killer instinct, I mean true killer instinct tested under pressure, that person already has finished you off in their mind, however, they train to have the choice to not physically finish you off. What I mean is that if I am a helpless target, a person with killer instinct uses their training to have the choice not to finish me off because in their mind, they have already done so. When a person does not have killer instinct (or has partial killer instinct), they struggle to finish off a helpless opponent. The martial training must then consist of learning how to overcome this internal conflict, and learn how to finish strongly as if they had killer instinct. It sounds so wrong to say you must finish off helpless opponents, so I will say this is a gross simplification of a much more complex topic that spans even into performance of military personnel on the battlefield. Most would just avoid the idea and generalize it under developing fighting spirit. Whatever you call it, the fact remains that many Aikidoka do not have killer instinct and do not do much to develop it along the path to "enlightenment."
What is meant by aiki aka nonresistance? How does it deal with offense(not attack, not strike, not grab, the WHOLE package:setup - execution- aftermath) that is designed and WILLED to damage? And another thing: this "old warrior" you speak of, is he going to use it (aiki) some more and participate in a few more battles? Or will he then just retire after learning aiki and become a "dangerous" old codger (supposedly) because of aiki? Hey, why would a "veteran warrior" learn aiki(or insert other martial art here) if it's not good? QUESTION: after learning it, did he TEST it like what he did with his previous skill-set? Young? Inexperienced? I disagree. Veteran police officers, soldiers, salarymen; many old guys DO aikido. (Disclaimer: I've never seen any effective aikido from them under REAL, limb-threathening pressure) Put it this way: martial arts MUST carry a degree of risk, or else it ain't martial, just mandancing... bromancing... :love: And competition(personal/property protection, prizefighting, peacekeeping, war) INCREASES that risk. Our survival instincts makes us minimize (or better yet eliminate) as much risk as possible. In many cases we must weigh the costs vs the benefits and decide IF the risk is worth it. Most aikidoka IMO decides that it's not worth it. They can get by without taking that risk increase. The incentives are too low. They can still get paid and live cripple-free. Why risk for mastery? Unless the consequences of NOT having efficacy are GREAT and IMMEDIATE, why risk at all? That's when they default to their previous repertoire under pressure. No incentive to ingrain. *Personal/property protection as competition? YES! The other guy competes with your desire of safety/current homeostasis to get his desired resource. You compete with the other guy to not let him take MOST if not all of your resources, i.e. minimizing damage/risk. Simple: the COSTS of not having efficacy (public shame due to defeats, not being able to eat or travel and having to return to Japan penniless) is greater than the RISKS of hard training (physical injuries). WHY? Maeda was a PRIZEFIGHTER. His reputation and more importantly, his objective efficacy earned him money. He has LOTS of incentive to hone, tweak, acquire, adapt, ingrain and polish his skills. Basic fact: most people will RESIST change unless there is a PRESSING incentive/need to change at all. And even with that, change must be WILLED in order to happen. Look at what I call the "flinch-cringe" and freezing under assault for a visceral example of that: some will be caught unawares, some freeze, some visibly flinch and cover up/put their hands up and THEN freeze. If you see someone using FOOTWORK probably you will see signs of combat sports as well. And guess what I've observed about aikido? Most of its efficacy IMO is derived from its footwork. But making it a habit while under IMMEDIATE limb-threatening pressure, I've never seen one. Again, I have to disagree. MARTIAL? No. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWpfOgalr3M"]Focus on the attacker[/ame] In Ueshiba's video, why attack that way when: 1. the other guy sees it and is enabled to give FULL ATTENTION to it? 2. the attack leaves you in a very counterattack-able position? 3. the attack leaves you in a position that makes it hard to press on the offense? Rmember: RISK MITIGATION. That kind of attack has all these risks. WHY use them? ANSWER: because you will HURT the sensei/fellow student. And that might get you KICKED OUT of the dojo. A real good damaging attack that YOU WANT to connect or the safety of your training partner: which is more important? THAT directly translates to your response under violence.
Aiki is just one principle among many combat principles used. It is just one of the ones that takes the longest to develop. I could have listed the "eyes first" principle and taught it in less than five minutes as a jab to the eyes, but there is so much more to that principle too. The Aiki principle is non-resistance and it can be taught in less than five minutes as a simple fake knee into a punch to the face (or otherwise known as a superman punch). There is much more to it than that. Principles work together with other principles, they are not the technique but why technique works. The veteran warrior that has developed Aiki has now incorporated that into all things in combat, whether it is a kick to groin or cut with a sword. If you want to know what non-resistance represents in combat, it is subtlety. That which cannot be easily seen with the naked eye. Kyuzo Mifune, a great Judoka, never trained in Aikido, but he developed (if I can believe the stories) what Aikido was supposed to be. I paraphrase, but as I understand it this came from Ueshiba himself. There is nothing unique about Aikido footwork. It is derived from Japanese weapons training. However, if at any point Aikido footwork does appear to be unique, that footwork probably isn't really practical and has never been tested in combat. For example, foot work where the tori circles around uke. This is not good, instead uke should be compelled to circle around tori while being constantly off balanced. There is one exception, and that is when the situation is more evenly matched and there may be some circling around each other before tori or uke can take the initiative. We have to agree to disagree. I saw martial in the spirit, mind, and body during the Aikido training in the video. As for attackers in training attacking unrealistically, that is a bit of something I've gone back and forth on through the years. I'm come to the point where an attack is only unrealistic if the spirit and mind are not acting realistically. The actual physical attack should be the one that promotes learning. In some cases it is an unrealistic looking attack, in other cases it is very close to a simulation of real world engagements. There is an understanding in training martial arts, the harder you attack, the harder I can counter. This is not a ego thing, it is pure intuition. I was told a story from a SWAT officer that had attended knife training in Russia. One of Americans there with him had remembered knife attacks he had seen in prison as a guard. So he attacked the instructor that way when it was his turn. The instructor hit him in both arms and in the jawline, knocking him down and out for a bit. The translator relayed the message from the instructor, "do not attack that way." Later in the lunch room this guy is sitting there looking at his plate of food but not eating. The officer asked if he wasn't hungry, the guy replied he was starving but he can't lift his arms to eat. My moral is to not assume every attack in a video that appears unrealistic means the training is bad. Some attacks are purely along the lines for demonstration and learning with a loose basis on much more realistic attacks. The only way to really tell is go train with them and experience for yourself.
Hey baby cart, thanks for the discussion. I just looked at that video "Focus on the attacker" that you included in your post. I think that goes along with my thoughts about an attack is only realistic in training if the mind and spirit are realistic. In the kenpo video examples, it does not seem the attacker is acting realistically and instead is just a striking dummy. In defense of kenpo, they want to overload/overwhelm the neural pathway of the attacker, so that they shut down so in a sense the hands dropping is a sign of that... however, unrealistic it might appear. In kajukenbo, we also do a LOT of training where the attacker is like a punching bag, but we work stages of combat so the attacker is supposed to react in realistic ways to strikes. I like the way we do it in kajukenbo... but I am bias. This is not to replace our sparring and such, but it is one part of the training and demonstration of technique we do for learning purposes and it does resemble in ways the attacker being a punching bag: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdnCjxg5ZLQ"]Professor Abad on Repetition - Part 2 of 2 - YouTube[/ame] By the way, we call being a punching bag, "learning to accept hits" because we do make contact, depending on the level, hard contact.
Is this a typo? Cuz if you can explain it in five minutes surely you can elaborate it in a post, right? That's the question I'm asking for: HOW did he incorporate it? How did he persuade his subconscious/instincts that the incorporation has been up to standard? So a operative sneaking behind an enemy and pokes him with poison is "non-resistance"? (See the assasination of Georgi Markov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov) It is combat. It is subtle (nearly undetected by the enemy). Let's compare that principle of "non-resistance" to another principle of grappling arts: "removal of one's base/support" Glossary: ground = the environment, the area of existence core = the targeted object of the action base/support = the structure or mechanism that connects the core to the ground in such a way that it is conducive to the core's continuing existence. Principle: Sever the support/base of the core from the ground How: there are many methods; attack the support(sweeps,reaps), uproot(suplex), increase the stress load of the base(kuzushi,jumping and riding,sutemi), use black propaganda among the masses (subversion and businesses), isolate the insurgents from their supporters(guerrilla warfare), attack the logistics of the enemy army (open war), etc. A single principle. Easy to intuitively get, hard to do but not vague unlike "non-resistance". So what is "non-resistance"? I beg to differ. I personally seen aikido footwork combinations in BJJ competitions that worked. However those guys were not aikidoka. The "tori circles around the uke"? That was done with a tenkan supported by a two on one that transitioned to a slap/push on the near shoulder blade to a back mount. Watch an american football match and there will be some similarities to aiki footwork in some players Learning of what? Does slitting a throat or a stab from behind promote learning? Wouldn't it be better if an attack EMBODY THE PRINCIPLES OF GOOD OFFENSE, IF NOT IN REAL-TIME THEN IN PRINCIPLE? Doe one really need to hit HARD to be EFFECTIVE? Or was the baseline "To hit and not get hit"? Most uke VIOLATE this primary principle, aikido is only one of them. It's like saying I will never understand that Manny Pacquiao punches hard unless I fight him. When someone attacks well and TRUE (intended to hit to achieve aims), there is always some visible manifestations of efficacy. One of them is the success of "hit and not get hit", either consistently or sporadically. Another is physical affect, either physiological or behavioural. Even karate point-fighting and WTF TKD has those manifestations. Don't worry, aikido is not alone in this same problem, WC and ninjutsu are in the same boat.
I don't care if Sir Allen Abad is a Filipino, I will criticize what should be criticized. Everything from 2:40 of that video onwards I consider good. Before that it suffers the same problems as the "Focus on the attacker" video. My rule of thumb is: the shorter it takes the better. Less moves for the same effect, good. Cuz the more time spent in conflict the more variables you will have to deal with. That's why there was a quote (probably mistakenly) attributed to Bruce Lee: "End a fight in three". IMO, Mr. Abad's first combinations presupposes no other factors can throw a spanner into the works. And the move that buys time, the groin strike, takes a long time to get employed and is not a certified "light switch" either, it can fail. And ground and pound is a science. You cannot just do what he instructed in that video. Try playing with a lying cat and you'll see what I mean. On the other hand, I loved his entry to the back. It's what Lyoto Machida tried to do with Tito Ortiz. PS That focus on the attacker is the same method applied in this wild (yet good) thread: http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101788
It really boils down to life or death about your statement, and quite frankly any art is worth more than gold. It's the wielders job to shape the metals not versa.
Ever heard of George Dillman? Ashida Kim? Frank Dux? EFO? Yellow Bamboo? Yanagi Ryuken? IIRC, I got this from Marc MacYoung: Rabbit Stew Recipe: Step 1: GET A RABBIT. Now I ask you, where do you get the metals? Is it pure ore, needs to be refined more or needs to be extracted? What is its grade? You know the "10,000 folds" of a katana? It's not the folds that are needed, it's the ore purity of the iron the swordsmiths want. You want to shape good quality metal or not? Same with martial arts.
I've elaborated in several posts. And I didn't say I could explain it in five minutes, I basically said I could teach you one technique in five minutes that in the way I teach it demonstrates the principle (among other principles at the same time). I will try to elaborate again below (although I will be repeating my self from previous posts in much of it). One sign is when technique becomes effortless. You do not feel you are using your strength or speed to be effective (in reality you are using strength and speed, but the way if feels is that our are allowing the technique to do the work). The amount of effort you must use is the sign of resistance. The the less perceived effort you exert to successfully accomplish your goals is a sign of the principle of Aiki. To your enemy, they do not feel your force until it is too late (subtle to them). It is feeling of a void... what they get out is what they put in, nothing more, nothing less... UNTIL it is too late. Nice write up on a principle. Note that there is overlap in interpretation of principles. Non-resistance: Cut through the enemy's intention to attack in a way that is perceived as nearly effortless by you and by your enemy. How: Take away their reason to attack (such as deescalate the situation with just a smile and open hands). Make attacking you not seem worth it (such as presenting body language that deters attack in such a way that the enemy just believes it is crazy to attack you). Cause internal conflict in the enemy (in society, such as going on a hunger strike in protest). Cause internal conflict in the enemy (in combat, such as to demonstrate how effortlessly you can bring the enemy to a near death experience, and in return they question why they ever were stupid enough to attack in the first place). Cause the enemy to question their own mortality (in mass combat, with a smaller perceived force, attack the enemy right through their heart before they are ready, causing them to panic and route in discord). How not to: Force your might/will on others (this is principle of Go). Do one thing to get a reaction from the enemy and use that reaction to defeat them (this is not Aiki, this is principle of JU)... ...however, both Go and Ju are used with Aiki. For example, if you apply an arm bar submission to your opponent and at 60% range of motion, 1) they tap out because you have them so well. 2) You opponent does not understand how easily you got them. 3) You do not know yourself how quickly you got them (like you are in the zone). Then guess what, you have demonstrated Aiki/non-resistance. So you can apply what is generally considered a tactic of Go or Ju, but with an Aiki influence. Note that one could just forcibly attack and break the enemy's spirit, that is not non-resistance... but it serves to the same end. From your description I would say that is Judo footwork to me. All footwork is related so in a sense nothing is unique. However, having crossed trained in both Aikido and BJJ. BJJ is like 3-dimensonal Aikido. Rather than standing up in one direction, in BJJ you can also be sideways and upside down relative to the opponent. I see similarities all the time, but it is because the human body can only move in a finite number of efficient ways. For example, Aikido uses the corner step from sword work... wrestling on a deep sprawl can use similar footwork to "turn the corner". They are not related martial arts, but the footwork is very similar in this case because it is what WORKS. No, I'm saying that it would be hard to see how hard Manny Pacquiao hits based ONLY from videos of demonstration and training. You might actually be a better idea to learn some boxing first and train with good boxers to see how hard the punches are. You could also get a trusted authority to do that and take their word for it... this is basically what you doing when you look at the Manny's opponent and seeing the effects of his punches. This is secondhand and is not as good as first hand, but is still acceptable. So who do you trust that has trained in Aikido to answer the questions you want answers to? If you have no one you can trust as an authority, then I'm suggesting you need to find someone like that to train with to get your answers. Videos and forum posts are not as good as first hand or secondhand experience. They are only supplemental to those.
I should have addressed this. In training one has to seemingly violate principles at times in order to understand and learn other principles... there is a difference between seemingly to violate and actually violating a principle. The difference is whether something is a bad habit (as demonstrated in many videos) or if it is instead allowing a technique to be fully experienced (within reason of course) so that you can steal it. The hit and not get hit is only ONE interpretation of the principle. In a broader sense the principle is always protect yourself. Even when accepting hits you are actively protecting yourself. For example proper breath (even emptying the lungs) and tensing up areas. Moving slightly to roll with blow/reduce the damage. Being able to bail out as a last resort to protect yourself or your partner. The principle that more applies here is the "attack and defense are one". The basis of attack in Aikido is around the "robot" opponent. The opponent has one and only one goal, and that is to strike you down, even if they die in the process. To uke should attack in a manner that they strike tori down. It is tori's job to protect uke by allowing uke to perform ukemi. This makes a lot more sense with swords than with open hands. With open hands it makes a lot more sense for uke to attack with combinations and continuous pressure than a single strike. Unfortunately, Aikido isn't taught this way in general. Now you add on top of that an uke that is actively countering and defending... even more difficult to find anywhere teaching Aikido this way. At best, you find a good Aikido school that starts with the sword principles and progresses into more realistic drills for modern times. P.S. how Aikido is used to cut through the intentions of attack from a robotic enemy is in reality that one or both of you die. There is only the chance that this robot enemy gains a conscious along the way, that you bring back the human elements into their brain washed ways.
