StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Or for anyone else for that matter...

1 - you need to spend about 10 years in it in order to get it up to a workable standard.

I'm studying Yoshinkan Aikido and I find this statement to be true. Aikido has a heap of techniques. I remember my sensei mentioning that Ueshiba had somewhere around 3,000 . I thought this was mind boggling. However, I keep practicing the basic motions every day and i notice that they're getting better. Wouldn't someone who trains regularly be able to become proficient in a shorter time span?

2 - it isn't a true martial art. It is a pure self defense technique.

Disagree. The very idea of aikido is shte and uke. One is offensive and the other defensive. One is balanced and the other is imbalanced. What do define as a true martial art? I train with two clubs (one is a kickboxing, clinchin, and grappling hybrid and the other, well, you can guess ) and we go through similar patterns in class.

3 - it ain't that useful in a streetfight (and before you say anything YES I do have rather extensive experience in brawling)

Are you saying that it isn't usefull in general or that it wasn't useful for you. One gentlemen from my club stopped a mugger from attacking a woman on the subway. He was able to use shiho-nage technique to quickly subdue his attacker.

4 - combine Aikido techniques with some other basic techniques (boxing, a bit of Ju-jitsu etc) and you have a damn nice well rounded method of "self-defense" that will allow you to put people on their arses, or more precisel, grind their head into the pavement while nearly dislocating their shoulder from that lovely joint-lock. As has been argued extensively in this and other forums, the best martial art is not a single one, but a combination of many.

I agree that there are certain truths in martial arts. However, I've always found the martial artist and not the art to be superior. Someone could brag that they know 5 different styles and yet still have only a basic grasp on each style. I find that someone who has studied an art in depth knows the ins and outs of all the techniques and can provide counter techniques and counter-counter teachniques.

Someone like Arminius gloats that Aikido is wuss art because at it's core belief is a way of harmony. Of course only a wanker like him could not see past the surface. He's too concerned with slobernockers and wild haymakers and good ol' rasslin'. Beneath the gentle, efficient motions of Aikido lies the true motive--to defeat your opponent the most efficient way possible and to deny him any power (i.e. kill or seriously injure) an opponent.

Next of Kin wrote:I'm studying Yoshinkan Aikido and I find this statement to be true. Aikido has a heap of techniques. I remember my sensei mentioning that Ueshiba had somewhere around 3,000 :shock: . I thought this was mind boggling. However, I keep practicing the basic motions every day and i notice that they're getting better. Wouldn't someone who trains regularly be able to become proficient in a shorter time span?

You will get the basic actions down fairly easily. Irimi Nage, Koto Gaeshi etc are nice and simple and also fairly easy to employ in practice, but in order for you to use solely Aikido in a real-life situation a LOT of practice is required.

Disagree. The very idea of aikido is shte and uke. One is offensive and the other defensive. One is balanced and the other is imbalanced. What do define as a true martial art? I train with two clubs (one is a kickboxing, clinchin, and grappling hybrid and the other, well, you can guess :) ) and we go through similar patterns in class.

Ah, yes. One reason I stopped studying is because when I moved to Hobart I couldn't find a traditional Aikido dojo, instead having to settle for one that tought the competitive form. A true martial art? Martial comes from War. As such it implies an offensive art, Aikido as such doesn't truly qualify thoiugh it is one of the best of hand to hand techniques.

:?: Are you saying that it isn't usefull in general or that it wasn't useful for you. One gentlemen from my club stopped a mugger from attacking a woman on the subway. He was able to use shiho-nage technique to quickly subdue his attacker.

Yeah, its helpful in subduing someone but in a true brawl subduing someone will only leave you open to further attack (citing a 30 person a side pitched battle here). Throws are useful, but the follow-up locksetc will just make you a target. Thus at times you have to break with the Aikido "ethic" and do something nasty like give them a kick in the ribs once they are down.

I agree that there are certain truths in martial arts. However, I've always found the martial artist and not the art to be superior. Someone could brag that they know 5 different styles and yet still have only a basic grasp on each style. I find that someone who has studied an art in depth knows the ins and outs of all the techniques and can provide counter techniques and counter-counter teachniques.

Someone like Arminius gloats that Aikido is wuss art because at it's core belief is a way of harmony. Of course only a wanker like him could not see past the surface. He's too concerned with slobernockers and wild haymakers and good ol' rasslin'. Beneath the gentle, efficient motions of Aikido lies the true motive--to defeat your opponent the most efficient way possible and to deny him any power (i.e. kill or seriously injure) an opponent.

Shit yes, Why do you think I love Aikido as an art, its all about "The path of least resistance" and the use of your opponents strength against them. But by applying that philosophy to other martial arts (which I admittedly do have a very limited practical knowledge of) I'm able to counter them more effectively. Try using Aikido against a someone who is good at Kung-fu. Its nto fun. THe constant movement is very different to what you train against in Aikido. Even a basic understanding of other martial arts will increase your effectiveness against them immensely. And yes, Arminius is a dick.

By Weemadando:

One reason I stopped studying is because when I moved to Hobart I couldn't find a traditional Aikido dojo, instead having to settle for one that tought the competitive form.

Did you study Tomiki-yu at this dojo?

By Weemadando:

A true martial art? Martial comes from War. As such it implies an offensive art, Aikido as such doesn't truly qualify thoiugh it is one of the best of hand to hand techniques.

From war? In some sense yes and no. Here's where my philosophy of aikido diverges. As corny as this may sound, the battle lies within. Thus, Aikido is true budo. In a deeper sense budo doesn't just focus on pummelling your enemy but it is a way of protection, honour, and peace.

Yeah, its helpful in subduing someone but in a true brawl subduing someone will only leave you open to further attack (citing a 30 person a side pitched battle here).

That must have been some bar room brawl! What happened? Did the bar suddenly run out of beer?
I agree that doing a technique to take someone to the ground and then following them down is futile. But you don't need anyone to tell you that.

Thus at times you have to break with the Aikido "ethic" and do something nasty like give them a kick in the ribs once they are down.

I hear ya! The aikido that you will do in the street (or bar) is going to be very different from the sharp, crisp techniques done on the tatami.
However, where in the aikido handbook does it say that a punch to the ribs isn't kosher. Do that in a judo tournament and good bye!

Try using Aikido against a someone who is good at Kung-fu. Its nto fun. THe constant movement is very different to what you train against in Aikido. Even a basic understanding of other martial arts will increase your effectiveness against them immensely.

That depends on the martial artist. If he's good then it will be a chore for anyone to defeat him. I find that it all comes down to timing. When I started practicing with some karate guys they were surprised with my fast foot work; they thought that aikido was a grappling art ala gracie.

Next of Kin wrote:By Weemadando:

One reason I stopped studying is because when I moved to Hobart I couldn't find a traditional Aikido dojo, instead having to settle for one that tought the competitive form.

:?: Did you study Tomiki-yu at this dojo?

Don't know the precise name of the form, but it was the variant used in competition.

By Weemadando:

From war? In some sense yes and no. Here's where my philosophy of aikido diverges. As corny as this may sound, the battle lies within. Thus, Aikido is true budo. In a deeper sense budo doesn't just focus on pummelling your enemy but it is a way of protection, honour, and peace.

Oooh. Nice analogy. I like a lot.

That must have been some bar room brawl! What happened? Did the bar suddenly run out of beer?
I agree that doing a technique to take someone to the ground and then following them down is futile. But you don't need anyone to tell you that.

No it was one residential college vs another at a goddamn TENNIS match. Someone burnt a stolen shirt from one, they stole somethign of ours, and it was on. Also a couple of barfights, but generally bouncers clear these pretty quickly.

I hear ya! The aikido that you will do in the street (or bar) is going to be very different from the sharp, crisp techniques done on the tatami.
However, where in the aikido handbook does it say that a punch to the ribs isn't kosher. Do that in a judo tournament and good bye!

I know it doesn't say anything about it, but you gotta feel a little guilty about it.

That depends on the martial artist. If he's good then it will be a chore for anyone to defeat him. I find that it all comes down to timing. When I started practicing with some karate guys they were surprised with my fast foot work; they thought that aikido was a grappling art ala gracie.

What I like about Aikido is it is fairly mutable and is good against most martial arts with a bit of practice. What I like about it even more is with our local free-form fighting group when I say my primary technique is Aikido people don't expect me to suddenly do a kick (which I'm not THAT good at, but it catches them off guard) or nail them with a rugby tackle.

By Weemadando

No it was one residential college vs another at a goddamn TENNIS match. Someone burnt a stolen shirt from one, they stole somethign of ours, and it was on.

A TENNIS match! I would have thought a football or rugby match. I take it that there was beer drinkin' going on at the match to make things more interesting.

Don't know the precise name of the form, but it was the variant used in competition

If it was Aikido and there were tournaments then you can bet that is was Tomiki Aikido or some offshoot of that branch. He's quite the interesting master--one of kano's best judo students but he's also called "the great traitor" in some aikido circles.

Next of Kin wrote:By Weemadando

No it was one residential college vs another at a goddamn TENNIS match. Someone burnt a stolen shirt from one, they stole somethign of ours, and it was on.

:shock: A TENNIS match! I would have thought a football or rugby match. I take it that there was beer drinkin' going on at the match to make things more interesting.

Rugby and footy is generally kept on the pitch (emphasise GENERALLY kept on the pitch). At tennis a brawl between the players is pretty hard. I've left college and my brawling incidents have dropped significantly. However in my "home town" of Launceston, just walking along the street will often lead to a fight due to the high numbers of bogans and others who are just there to pick fights.

Quote:
I hear ya! The aikido that you will do in the street (or bar) is going to be very different from the sharp, crisp techniques done on the tatami.
However, where in the aikido handbook does it say that a punch to the ribs isn't kosher. Do that in a judo tournament and good bye!


I know it doesn't say anything about it, but you gotta feel a little guilty about it.

Hehe. If it were a friend then maybe I would feel a little guilt. I'd have no problem breaking a wrist or punching a kidney of someone like Arminius!