Page 8 of 8 First ... 45678
  1. #71

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    38
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Hahahaha... That's a good one....

  2. #72

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    552
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    You might notice that many aikido kata demonstration takes few seconds to complete each technique. Many aikido kata technique have exaggerated circular movement purly for the training purpose.

    In real fight, your technique should be direct/straight with circular movement internalised which should be applied instantly to break or throw opponent. That is why description of Shioda Gozo's fight seems far away from aikido in dojo.

    Obviously, you can't do something like that in practice.

  3. #73

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    467
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I heard that a good shihonage without Ukemi can break someones thigh bone, well atleast thats the intended target.

    I remember my Sensei talking to the Dan grades about what to use and what not to use, she basically said that Kokyunages, Ikkyos and kote gaeshis (if I remember correctly) were the most effective techniques. That being said, the ones I have found most unpleasant when free training is Nikkyo and Shihonage.

    Oh and PizDoff, Aikido always had striking.

  4. #74

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    18,608
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    "Why not learn an art with good principles AND techniiques?"
    That's what I;m asking, and SamHarber seems to be saying Aikido techniques don't work in a fight....
    and I'm like "WTF?"


    "Oh and PizDoff, Aikido always had striking."
    Did you read the striking article?
    It said "some" masters say no striking.
    That's what I've always heard but then this world is going nuts....

    Hippies

    --
    Hard work, Patience, Dedication.
    Surfing Facebook at work? Spread the good word by adding us on Facebook today! https://www.facebook.com/Bullshido

  5. #75

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Not going to argue about the effectiveness since it seems the decision was made before the question was even asked, but I wanted to address the striking concern.

    Gozo Shioda (founder of Yoshinkan Aikido) in his book Total Aikido:
    'Ueshiba Sensei, said, "In a real battle, atemi (striking) is seventy percent, technique is thirty percent."'

    So yes, Aikido does have striking.

  6. #76

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    109
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Of course Aikido has striking, almost every techniques has several strikes in them. If you omit the strike, like many many Aikido schools do, you make the techniques just an exercise that has no martial effectiveness.

    The striking is what takes their balance in order to pull off the technique. In Judo you can not throw without kuzushi and in Aikido you can not throw without atemi.

  7. #77
    Beatdown Richie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    1,886
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    My 2 cents on the various topics in this thread:

    Nikkyo from within guard: I've tried that a couple of times. The reactions I got: a tap; a surprised look before the guy jerked his hand out; a "don't try that kung fu **** on me" before the guy continued to maul me. Needs some more work, I think...

    Improvised throws: yes, they're nice, yes, they might work. Then why on earth aren't they practiced a lot more? None of the aikido clubs I've seen has remotely enough sparring/ free training/ realistic improvisation/ whatever.

    Principles: the principles (no strength, evasion, control etc) are cool. Then again, these days I prefer arts that share the principles but have techniques that actually work, and a training mindset that develops the ability to apply one's stuff (e.g. BJJ).

    One more point: aikido may have some applicable techniques, but it is woefully incomplete when it comes to defending against competent attackers -
    I'm not sure whether this is due to training methods or systematic problems with the approach.
    When I watch MMA fights, I just don't see too many situations where I think "Wow, an iriminage would have been just the best thing there" - it's much too fast, too shifty to get the techniques set up.
    There are no wrong threats, only wrong answers. (Strategy game truism)

  8. #78

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Bolton, Lancashire, UK
    Posts
    2,611
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    One more point: aikido may have some applicable techniques, but it is woefully incomplete when it comes to defending against competent attackers -
    I'm not sure whether this is due to training methods or systematic problems with the approach.
    I'd say its both, which is what eventually caused my club to give up and find a new way.
    Taking responsibility for my actions since 1989

  9. #79

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    552
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    "In a real battle, atemi (striking) is seventy percent, technique is thirty percent."

    I quoted the same line in other aikido forum. My understand at this time was that, in real fight 70% are spent on striking to create opening to get into close range grappling so one can apply aikido technique.

    High grade pointed out to me that atemi, in this content, should not be interpreted as striking but anything which breaking opponent's structure/composure as in judo kuzushi. This made more sence to me. Though it is true that majority of aikido style has striking in the opening of the most techniques, we don't train striking nowhere hard enough to match striking-70% reality. And anyway, why not train traditional karate where it is 70% striking 30 persent lock/throw.

    None of aikido techniques will works for real unless you break opponent's balance/structure first, which is the same in judo. Or idealy from aikido point of view, you seize the moment where opponent overextended himself.

    Another thing I was told is that most aikido techniques will not work for beginner because it's been taught as restrain technique in dojo. In reality, restraining technique work agains resisting opponent only if you outrank your opponent in experience or strength. For practical purpose, you should apply lock as immmediate join break and not as lock.

    "Shioda's first attacker launched a kick, Shioda evaded and used a hand strike to the man's extended knee. He felt the leg break and that put the second guy out of the fight."

    The timing in which Shioda evaded the kick and entered into close range to apply strike at the precise moment when the attacker extended his knee is where he used aikido.

    .

    P.S. There is nothing wrong with learning restraining techniques, IMO. Not only it is better *training* technique, it's great if you work in LEO business. Plus if you severly maim opponent in street fight,you are likely to face criminal prosecution. More violent technique does not mean better technique.

    Edited by - Vapour on June 17 2003 11:43:50

Page 8 of 8 First ... 45678

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO