I don't agree with much of this. While he tried to make aikido 'non-violent' it wasn't that he felt it was martially ineffective, nor did his original students. Gozo Shiodo, for example, would go around to gangs and challenge one of their members. The training also wasn't soft. Ueshiba himself used to head-butt a wall every morning. You'll see videos of Saito, Kotier etc doing very strenuous and repetitive bokken training in the forests (as was typical of main sword schools). Aikido in no way is passive, but incorporates the concept of yin and yang (as many other martial arts do). Indeed, when Henry Kono (another Ueshiba Japanese student) asked "why can't we do what you do?' Ueshiba replied 'you don't understand yin and yang'. The whole problem is that many senseis now assume it is passive. I trained for around 20 years, and after around 5 years of training, when I had to move to a new location, I decided I'd just learn and not teach. Unfortunately what I saw was (i) people doing 'soft' aikido whereby they were just walking around with partners (ii) people doing 'hard' aikido, where they focused on the movement of the arms and wrists and on teaching sets of techniques. Really aikido is (i) a mechanistic method of moving the body to ensure where you apply force it cannot easily be resisted (ii) training instinctive reactions (iii) being able to move fluidly between different techniques such that really there isn't seperate techniques (they arise from different body positions or use of force from uke) (iv) develop for action against one surprise strike (thus well adapted to drunken brawls, or to attacks with weapons. This is why it is poor in MMA.. people can expect something and they are not fully committed to a strike as they would be with a drunken haymaker or sudden stab (esp with a ranged weapon such as sword or spear).
To be honest, if you go through martial art program for police and special forces, there is nothing looks like MMA bars and locks. Techniques excel at cage fighting are most likely unreasonable in street fighting. I always ask those "proud" MMA advocators, what do you supposed to do when there are 2 opponents; when they have weapons and you don't. They never get to anything close to an answer. Just to be clear, cage fighting still works excellently in one to one empty-handed combat.
Hi, student of both TMA and MMA approaches. The answer as an MMA approach, footwork footwork footwork, till something looks like a weapon, outside range jabs and picking at the weaker of the two. Or Gun
@@zachariahtaylor7811 Answer like a true MMA! Your approach assume opposition of equal skills, strength and most importantly, all stand IN FRONT OF you. You need to point out the kind of decision that they will make in the case of clear over power and response to that. The response need to be effective with less arms and legs. Or GUN??? If you have a gun, much less work and think, isn't it? You already have overwhelming power. I can defend myself 99% of the time being slow, fat and gun. Sure sign of practicality!!! Not lazy thinking nor getting lost.
@@nguyenvu8262 homie, if I’m moving, it’s because I need to keep eyes on both people, cuz if not, it’s running away time. Or Say I’ve got to protect someone. Then it’s just do or die. There’s none of this “standing in front of me” business. The other question is, are they just hellbent on getting to me? Is this a getting mugged for a wallet scene? Am I at the stereotypical bar? These factors have pretty different ways of going about this.
@@zachariahtaylor7811 Trust me, there is no point to just guess randomly. There are frameworks teach self-defense. You just happen to not be in that flow. Just accept the fact that there is no perfect or "ultimate" system. System specializes in self-defense are not effective in cage fighting (one on one empty handed combat). Just as the other way is true. Different contexts lead to different core decision making, expectation, body utilization. You can attempt to answer all you want but it's already clear that you were not trained in such a way. Doesn't mean you are a bad fighter nor I can beat you. But yes, you were lied to. Perfect fighting system is just an illusion that modern sports fighters convince each other.
@@nguyenvu8262 I think there’s a mistake here, I never claimed that there is a perfect system, just offered the go to option speaking as someone who trains in both areas. However, there are methods that have a higher rate of not immediately getting smashed. Footwork is universal, albeit done with different goals, it’s still crucial if you’re going to be any good in physical combat. Jabbing/prodding, feeling out, distance gauging, etc, that’s useful a tool as footwork. I’m not sure you were trained in “special ways”, and maybe you might need to accept that sport fighting has healthy elements that easily carry over into self defense.
@@user-uv6ev5to1u it’s just my opinion, but I think you’re correct. The son was nowhere near as talented as his father and accelerated the pace of distancing most modern aikido from its martial routes. But you see that also happening with O Sensei. For example, in aikido you see a technique known as ikkyo or ikkajo performed from many scenarios (e.g. wrist grab, shomenuchi -vertical strike to head, or yokomenuchi - side strike to head). In the original form this was only performed from a shomenuchi attack when the attacker had a katana. In the aikido version the opponent is taken off balance and led to the floor. In the original version the opponent is smashed in the face, then stabbed with a tanto (knife) through the rib cage, then kicked in the same area for good measure, followed up by a fatal cut to the neck or spinal cord.
День назад
It seems you did not choose the best teachers or instructors, they did not teach you that the martial value of the Aikido is in their principles, not in the technics. Do you know the shu-ha-ri concept? It seems you stuck at the middle level.
I don't agree with much of this. While he tried to make aikido 'non-violent' it wasn't that he felt it was martially ineffective, nor did his original students. Gozo Shiodo, for example, would go around to gangs and challenge one of their members. The training also wasn't soft. Ueshiba himself used to head-butt a wall every morning. You'll see videos of Saito, Kotier etc doing very strenuous and repetitive bokken training in the forests (as was typical of main sword schools). Aikido in no way is passive, but incorporates the concept of yin and yang (as many other martial arts do). Indeed, when Henry Kono (another Ueshiba Japanese student) asked "why can't we do what you do?' Ueshiba replied 'you don't understand yin and yang'. The whole problem is that many senseis now assume it is passive. I trained for around 20 years, and after around 5 years of training, when I had to move to a new location, I decided I'd just learn and not teach. Unfortunately what I saw was (i) people doing 'soft' aikido whereby they were just walking around with partners (ii) people doing 'hard' aikido, where they focused on the movement of the arms and wrists and on teaching sets of techniques. Really aikido is (i) a mechanistic method of moving the body to ensure where you apply force it cannot easily be resisted (ii) training instinctive reactions (iii) being able to move fluidly between different techniques such that really there isn't seperate techniques (they arise from different body positions or use of force from uke) (iv) develop for action against one surprise strike (thus well adapted to drunken brawls, or to attacks with weapons. This is why it is poor in MMA.. people can expect something and they are not fully committed to a strike as they would be with a drunken haymaker or sudden stab (esp with a ranged weapon such as sword or spear).
@@eend497 thank you for sharing your perspective.
よし！
The same thing happened to Tai Chi Chuan. I cannot say to what extent the courses were parallel. Mike
Can’t agree more with your comment.
Perfect explanation
Best description ever!
I look forward to seeing your future videos.
Thank you for sharing
To be honest, if you go through martial art program for police and special forces, there is nothing looks like MMA bars and locks. Techniques excel at cage fighting are most likely unreasonable in street fighting. I always ask those "proud" MMA advocators, what do you supposed to do when there are 2 opponents; when they have weapons and you don't. They never get to anything close to an answer.
Just to be clear, cage fighting still works excellently in one to one empty-handed combat.
Hi, student of both TMA and MMA approaches. The answer as an MMA approach, footwork footwork footwork, till something looks like a weapon, outside range jabs and picking at the weaker of the two. Or
Gun
@@zachariahtaylor7811 Answer like a true MMA! Your approach assume opposition of equal skills, strength and most importantly, all stand IN FRONT OF you.
You need to point out the kind of decision that they will make in the case of clear over power and response to that. The response need to be effective with less arms and legs.
Or GUN??? If you have a gun, much less work and think, isn't it? You already have overwhelming power. I can defend myself 99% of the time being slow, fat and gun. Sure sign of practicality!!! Not lazy thinking nor getting lost.
@@nguyenvu8262 homie, if I’m moving, it’s because I need to keep eyes on both people, cuz if not, it’s running away time.
Or
Say I’ve got to protect someone.
Then it’s just do or die. There’s none of this “standing in front of me” business.
The other question is, are they just hellbent on getting to me? Is this a getting mugged for a wallet scene? Am I at the stereotypical bar? These factors have pretty different ways of going about this.
@@zachariahtaylor7811 Trust me, there is no point to just guess randomly. There are frameworks teach self-defense. You just happen to not be in that flow. Just accept the fact that there is no perfect or "ultimate" system. System specializes in self-defense are not effective in cage fighting (one on one empty handed combat). Just as the other way is true.
Different contexts lead to different core decision making, expectation, body utilization. You can attempt to answer all you want but it's already clear that you were not trained in such a way. Doesn't mean you are a bad fighter nor I can beat you. But yes, you were lied to. Perfect fighting system is just an illusion that modern sports fighters convince each other.
@@nguyenvu8262 I think there’s a mistake here, I never claimed that there is a perfect system, just offered the go to option speaking as someone who trains in both areas. However, there are methods that have a higher rate of not immediately getting smashed. Footwork is universal, albeit done with different goals, it’s still crucial if you’re going to be any good in physical combat. Jabbing/prodding, feeling out, distance gauging, etc, that’s useful a tool as footwork.
I’m not sure you were trained in “special ways”, and maybe you might need to accept that sport fighting has healthy elements that easily carry over into self defense.
I thought it was his son that changed it into a dance form poorly imitating the most difficult form of Daito Ryu - aiki no jutsu.
@@user-uv6ev5to1u it’s just my opinion, but I think you’re correct. The son was nowhere near as talented as his father and accelerated the pace of distancing most modern aikido from its martial routes. But you see that also happening with O Sensei. For example, in aikido you see a technique known as ikkyo or ikkajo performed from many scenarios (e.g. wrist grab, shomenuchi -vertical strike to head, or yokomenuchi - side strike to head). In the original form this was only performed from a shomenuchi attack when the attacker had a katana. In the aikido version the opponent is taken off balance and led to the floor. In the original version the opponent is smashed in the face, then stabbed with a tanto (knife) through the rib cage, then kicked in the same area for good measure, followed up by a fatal cut to the neck or spinal cord.
It seems you did not choose the best teachers or instructors, they did not teach you that the martial value of the Aikido is in their principles, not in the technics. Do you know the shu-ha-ri concept? It seems you stuck at the middle level.
With respect, I think I have / had perfectly good teachers. Thanks for your contribution though.