Aikido yardstick (not expecting it to be used gently)

[Diesel_tke]

Yeah, I get that. But some arts just aren't intended to be all encompassing. A lot of BJJ schools don't teach responses to striking. Doesn't make the art bad. Just bad at that.

MT is a good striking art but doesn't help much with the ground.

So I don't discredit Aikido just for that. But it better be good and effective at what it claims. Ans that is where the aliveness comes in.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

[realjanuary]

I don't even think they need to spar against people in other systems. To me the key is fully resisting. For example: I need to be able to pull off these techniques against someone who is trying to keep me from doing them to me. To compliant at all. If you grab my wrist, I do everything I can think of to pull away and counter.

If the techniques hold up under these conditions, they are effective. This is how we pressure test everything where I train. Everything.

*I'm going to spew some bs cliches here*

That's cool, quality control is great. Before we do it we need to know what we're testing and how to test it.

game 1
uke can do anything to resist the technique
tori must do the pre-chosen technique

This is what I call "square-peg-in-round-hole" training. It's a useful training tool.

game 2
Uke must try to land one pre-determined strike or maintain a specified hold
tori can do any technique, including striking

I call this "uke can't win" it's a common scene in dojo training. (instructors correct us for "tanking" or not attacking with commitment and then change the technique when we "block the technique"). *insert apologist rationale here*

The skill of quality control is not in the results we find, but in how we design the game and interpret the results. The two games described are extremes and not fair tests.

A lot of aikido training uses somewhat contrived counter-for-counter scenarios. For example, in many techniques a strike is included early on, which uke counters. If the strike is omitted, or uke's counter is different to kihon waza, kihon waza stops making sense. Playing nice, while staying honest, with striking is more difficult than with grappling. It's not impossible, it just has it's own challenges.

Every type of training, if used excessively, creates abberations.

PS
I just started reading this article while googling stuff for here. I think it's relevant.

PPS
I recognise my bias as an aikido apologist.

[realjanuary]

Yeah, I get that. But some arts just aren't intended to be all encompassing. A lot of BJJ schools don't teach responses to striking. Doesn't make the art bad. Just bad at that.

MT is a good striking art but doesn't help much with the ground.

So I don't discredit Aikido just for that. But it better be good and effective at what it claims. And that is where the aliveness comes in.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

Didn't see this when I was typing my last reply. Hits the nail on the head.
What aikido claims to do is so nebulous it often falls between two stools.

[Permalost]

What aikido claims to do is so nebulous it often falls between two stools.

From what I've seen of aikido practice, a majority of time seems to be spent defending oneself against an attacker who is
1. grabbing the wrist
2. stepping in and karate chopping your head
3. running directly at you as an attack

Unfortunately, none of these are the bread and butter attacks of any other martial art, so training this way doesn't seem too useful to spar against pretty much any other style, except whatever style Ray Jackson did.

[Mister]

What aikido claims to do is so nebulous it often falls between two stools.

Last edited by realjanuary; 6/28/2012 12:40am at . Reason: typos, yes even in this short a post

I bet you made that typo on nebulous.

I had to google it.

[realjanuary]

I bet you made that typo on nebulous.

I had to google it.

I actually left the second "i" out of aikido, I wish I was joking.

edit: OP might like to look at the Aliveness in aikido thread

[lordbd]

This may sound noobish and I know that there are threads about this as well here on Bullshido, but couldn't it be argued that the Tomiki folks have already spent a fair amount of time working on the whole "yardstick for aikido" thing with their aikido randori competitions and stuff? I never had the chance to try Tomiki out, but would have if there was a gym in my area.

Although the vids I've seen here on Bullshido look kind of like crappier Judo (to me, someone who practices neither Judo nor Tomiki Aikido).

[AikiOK]

@lordbd- Several of the item have been covered. I didn't want to start a new discussion in some of the zombie threads which brought with them the overhead of arguments already in progress.

@realjanuary- thanks for the answers and the link, off to read and digest.

[AikiOK]

PS
I just started reading this article while googling stuff for here. I think it's relevant.
.

It is great I read that a few weeks ago as I was researching and remembering concepts to make sure I was covering in class. Thank you for the link, it is invaluable on several levels.

[AikiOK]

From what I've seen of aikido practice, a majority of time seems to be spent defending oneself against an attacker who is
1. grabbing the wrist
2. stepping in and karate chopping your head
3. running directly at you as an attack

Unfortunately, none of these are the bread and butter attacks of any other martial art, so training this way doesn't seem too useful to spar against pretty much any other style, except whatever style Ray Jackson did.

I agree on all points, if they are beyond the first or second grading this training is not effective. As pointed out in the Aliveness video, it is practicing the same 3 chess opening moves to the point of rote memory without understanding of the concept and increasing depth of knowledge by seeing a reaction from say opening P-K3 or exploiting other openings and avenues of movement