My Aikido sensei studied under the founder of Aikido in Japan in the 1960s.

There are varying levels of trust. I trust the drivers around me to not do anything too stupid. I trust that the money I earn will buy me food and clothing (and beer!).

More importantly, I trust the people I go snowboarding with that they'll dig me out of an avalanche, and the people I train with in Aikido that they can receive a technique safely and the senseis who demonstrate a technique on me that they won't do any permanent damage.

Most importantly, I trust my wife.... with everything.

I can't really speak for Systema, and there are certainly some people in aikido who focus on mystic nonsense.

But the base underlying principles are sound. I've been taken apart by a 73 year old man literally half my size. I've also trained with other people in various jujutsus, and both of us have found something to learn from the other.

I don't really think it's self-deception. Maybe for some people, it is, but I'm under no illusion about how well I'd do against one of the UFC guys.

Besides, people seem to think that Aikido practitioners are somehow restricted to the demonstrated techniques. IMO, those are merely teaching aids, the "finger pointing at the stars", if you like

Ultimately, debating martial arts on the internet is even more pointless than debating with creationists. You really need to experience each art to understand it. If it isn't for you, that's fine; find something else that is.

It is true that MMA is not the be-all end-all of martial arts,and in fact "two persons of equivalent weight competing willingly on neutral ground" is quite far removed from "actual trouble" (key words: "two", "willingly").

That being said, two things:
1) There have been 'no-hold-barred' fights / underground duels recorded since at least the 1920s, some of them very violent and bone-splitting (famously: Kimura Vs Gracie), and 'soft' aikido-style systems never won anything.

2) More importantly, systema does claim a number of things, including being a martial art in the military sense, and being the product of an elite military force, to which it was reserved (i.e. it was secret). It also claims to have semi-mystical roots dating from the middle ages, and bonker stuff like 'paralyzing soft punch' and 'healing punch' (this is claimed by its actual founder - you can look it up). Of course none of those claims have been substantiated.

So systema is either:
- An elite martial art with Fist-Of-The-North-Star like powers, yet no one heard of it before or beside (not pre-USSR historians, not recognized Russian martial artists, and not actual Russian elite military officers), and was/is super-secret, yet can be somehow taught to anyone.

Or:
- Stuff made up by two guys out of the army.

You decide.

If your goal is "studying" and "bettering yourself", shouldn't that involve something that's honest with its claims?

I agree with Velocity5, it is, indeed, self-deception.

And this is why I don't bother with these debates any more.

I don't care what you think you know about Aikido or Systema or Wing Chun or Tai Chi or whatever else you want to hate on.

It's not all about "proving" yourself in an MMA match or "on the street" or whatever other made up scenario you care to concoct.

If you are a better person for having studied your art.... that's all there is to it.

This video is self-deception, same as Aikido and every other martial arts scam.

Prove these techniques in an MMA match or GTFO.

Stop putting astrology nonsense out into the world.

Yep, Aikido is a lot like that too.

It's really easy to look at an Aikido demo or class and think that it's all choreographed and one person is just being compliant. Then you try it and realise that the "compliant" person is just trying to avoid having their joints smashed.

Try the same movement with a beginner and they'll get badly hurt, and it will look clumsy and inelegant.

That said, I don't even worry about it any more. Self defence is not the only reason to train in a martial art.

Systema interests me in the way they absorb power. I don't know enough about it to say if these guys are good or not, but their movements are certainly interesting.

Ah, Steven Seagal... an embarrassment to every thing he's ever associated with including aikido, acting, music, law enforcement and mma training.

If the liberal dream of seizing all the wealth of the rich came true (minus, I'm sure, Hollywood weirdos) they'd loot about 250 billion, enough to fund our entire precious thugverment for 10-12 days.

The Right needs to step aside like an aikido sensei and just let the taxocrats raise taxes as high as they want, that way the left can OWN the turbo-boost they give to the Depression they're already creating,

>> ^Retroboy:

DrewNumberTwo kinda stole my thunder (and eloquently at that), but perhaps there's still enough room to ask: how do you know so much about ancient japanese weapons without evidence of such study confining your own self to a certain stereotype that this young man belongs to as well?


Well, aside from the fact that I wasn't really taking it all that seriously (see my reply to drew), I've studied Aikido (including bokken work) for a good few years now and I'm currently looking into getting an iaito (hence looking at the prices of them) and starting Iaido once I get through my next grading. I wouldn't claim to be an expert in any way, but I know enough to recognise this as bullshit.

As for stereotyping myself, I'll happily admit that if anyone shows the slightest interest, I will bore them to death talking about Aikido (of which I know a little bit) and martial arts in general (of which I know bugger all).

But I don't go around cutting bottles in half with a pos "sword" and putting it on youtube.

I'm in the same boat as @hpqp. I also really don't get IVF. If you really want a child and you can't conceive, why not adopt?

That's not to say I don't like kids; I do. I actually teach a kids Aikido class at my dojo. I just like giving them back

Is akido the name of the music artist, or is that supposed to be aikido, the martial art, in the tags?

[edit: After peering at the original on YouTube, akido isn't the group. That is listed as skrillex. The nuns are definitely NOT displaying aikido, the martial art, either. "karate akimpo" is listed as a tag on the original, but I've not got a clue what that is…]

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^TheFreak:
Don't know what's been happening with tae kwon do in the past decade. It's developed this strange focus on ineffective spinning-jumping kicks. More like gymnastics than martial arts.
Government interference is what happened.
First they pressured the separate kwons to unify in an attempt to form one universal Korean martial art. This is what created TKD (in name, at least). Then they sought ways to make it a symbol of the country, to give the Korean people something to be proud of. Ultimately this culminated in an effort to introduce it to the Olympics. In order to accomplish this, they had to turn it into a sport. The military style of TKD still exists but, aside from the actual military, it's hard to find anywhere that teaches it inside Korea.
I have a friend who is from South Korea. He was adopted and brought to the US when he was still a baby. He's a TKD black belt. He's taken trips back to Korea and he's sparred with people who have learned TKD there and they are all horrible because they've been taught to dance rather than fight.
The only fighting they know is point fighting so they do not learn to defend and they do not learn how to generate power. They are incredibly fast but, in a real fight, he had no doubts that they would pose little to no threat unless he was greatly outnumbered.


Interesting, I was unaware of most of that.

I was talking to one of my older Aikido students last night who's been teaching TKD for a long time. I'd judge his style as very martial and effective based on the punches and kicks he was using while we compared notes. We were discussing how the tai sabaki from Aikido has influenced his TKD and I asked him about the change in TKD. He brushed it off and pointed out how he teaches both point fighting and martial effectiveness and distinguishes between the two to his students. His only thoughts on the current state of some TKD was that it was a passing fad.

While Aikido is absolutely superior to ALL MMA styles, I must say I found this video funny.

This business of grappling in the ring with each other is nonsense. An Aikido master would NEVER let that happen!

Your ass would be face down in a submission hold before you even knew what hit you.

And yes, Steven Seagal is the real fuckin' deal, boys. He's an Aikido master.

OK Winstonfield, I'll tell you why you're a (religious) idiot. You seem to be asking for it after all.

1. All Christian codes of conduct (its ethics) can be traced back to Greek philosophers. It probably goes further back than that, but we only have records up to the Greeks. Religions at that time did not concern themselves with ethical matters, at least not in any systematized way (it was a collection of old wives' tale about what happened to the boy who cried wolf, etc.). Judaism was one of the first, if not the first, religion to do this. This is why it was laughed at. Everyone in the ancient world knew that religion had nothing to do with raising good people: the City did. Nowadays we would say: the school, or the government or whatever. Only when religion takes over the schools or the government (like Judaism did in Judea or Christianity in medieval Europe) does it serve that purpose. And all monotheistic religions, by their nature, seek to become the only power, so it makes sense that they would encompass all things about life. Which makes their message too spread out and (philosophically) weak. This is why a religion like Christianity, that was proliferated by Roman slaves, could itself become the basis for Black slavery centuries later.

2. Churches do not want to build better people for a better world. They want to indoctrinate people so that the Church becomes the World. They want uniformity of thought. They are totalitarian in their very nature. Especially monotheist Churches. But then again, polytheisms usually do not have Churches.

3. Churches do not teach moral behavior. They preach moral behavior. Anyone can preach. Few can teach. The ancient Greek and Roman nobility would pay fortunes to get a good teacher for their children, and the City was seen as having a duty to educate all children to become proper citizens. And here you say we must put our faith in the words of preachers, who recite two thousand year old parables about a supposed King of the Jews that lived in a Roman controlled desert? What the fuck is wrong with you?

4. You should learn about Evolutionary Stable Strategies. For a strategy to be evolutionary stable, it is not required that it do anyone any good, only that it be good at reproducing itself. Religions are such strategies. They are parasitic. They hijack the timeless ethical wisdom of our ancestors to perpetuate their useless metaphysics.

5. He means what I said at 4. Since it's important, I'll repeat it here: religions are hijacking the timeless ethical wisdom of our ancestors to perpetuate their useless metaphysics.


To be on topic, as an aikidoka I believe this is a perfect example of the good usage of violence (or force). Once you cannot peacefully avoid conflict anymore and the opponent still presses for combat, you give him the fight of his life. It may very well mean that you failed to avoid conflict, but that is why we learn to fight: so that when we do fight, we can prevail without killing or maiming (this kid probably does not know aikido so give him a break). But even so, in very rare and specific circumstances, you will have to kill to preserve your life or that of someone close. But if you tried to avoid conflict as the precepts of aikido dictate, it is safe to say that you are still a better person than he was*. After all, sometimes a good razing is the only thing that will keep a forest alive. Individual trees do not matter in the long run.

*Some aikidoka would be reluctant to say this. They are either Japanese people and thus have a hard time admitting to unpopular/controversial opinions or they are deluding themselves and being weak. How can there be good if no one is better than anyone else, if no one is worth more than anyone else? Of course, it's easy to say "worth less" = "worthless", but that is only being cynical and misses the point. As for me, as an atheist I do not believe in Good or Evil and so goodness is more like IQ: normal people in a given society get a median of 100 points of goodness or virtue or whatever you want to call it. Even psychopaths need to be good sometimes in order to live in society (some may say they fake it, but faked or not their actions are sometimes good). Inter-cultural comparisons, while not impossible, are difficulty to do and ultimately arbitrary.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

1. You're speaking for all churches, which doesn't make sense. Different churches are... different.
Churches are different. This is true. But most religions do not go about teaching negative behavior. I've never been in a church (Baptist, Lutherain, Catholic, 7th Day, Mormon, Jewish, whatever) where I heard the message, "Its OK to steal, lie, cheat, sleep around, or be intolerant to others." Quite the opposite. Most churches teach what would be called 'positive morality'. The relative degree of success each church achieves then becomes represented in the population.
2. You're implying that all the morals that a church teaches are the right ones. Many people strongly disagree.
You are using absolutes here. I did not say "all the morals". I said that churches teach morality codes that encourages the "build a better world by building better people" outcome that some were saying was a preferable dynamic to a soceity where we cheer the slamming of bullies into the sidewalk.
3. You're saying that the best way to teach morals is to make people believe in God. Many people strongly disagree.
No - I did not say that. I said that churches/religion were places where moral behavior is taught, and that should be encouraged rather than denigrated.
4. You're saying that fighting against churches in various forms is counterproductive to
producing moral people. Many people strongly disagree.
This I DID say. Undermining organizations that instruct their members to be better people - merely because you may not agree with all their tenents - is counterproductive to producing a moral people. Many people strongly disagree? Then those people are morons.
Let's move it away from religion for a second. For the sake of argument, let's say that we're talking about a completely non-religious group which has as its sole purpose the desire to teach people the societal benefits that come from adhering to a Utilitarian philosophy. This group goes around, building charities, helping the poor, caring for the sick, and otherwise providing a bunch of service and societal benefits. In short - they are doing good and helping people.
But then a group of Wittgenstienians come along who strongly disagrees with the Utilitarian philosophy. They begin to loudly shout that these Utilitarians should be eliminated, ignored, and marginalized because what they believe is 'wrong' or 'old-fashioned'. They acheive a certain degree of success, and the Utilitarian group starts getting fewer people showing up, and therefore has less ability to continue doing its good deeds.
Now - how exactly has society been advanced by this scenario? It hasn't. These hypothetical Wittgenstienians are not doing good themselves. They exist only as a parasitical contradiction to the Utilitarians. They are not replacing the good deeds, actions, and benefits that were being done by the group they disagreed with. They are doing nothing except reducing the number of people who were doing good things. How is that "building better people?"
Now - that is an exaggeration of course. In real life, not all of Group "A" are necessarily doing good things, and not all of Group "B" are not contributors to the good. But by and large the example serves the purpose of illustrating that religions do contribute to the societal good, and that there is little or no societal benefit that results from hassling them merely because you don't agree with them.
5. You're misrepresenting the true purpose of most churches that I've heard of, and misrepresenting Christianity in general.
I... have no clue what you mean with this statement. At what point did I ever make statements about "the true purpose of religion"? All I said was that one of the main functions of religion is to teach morality to people. Well - that's true. When you sit down in a church & listen to a sermon or go to Sunday School, 99 times out of 100 the message is one of personal morality. I've been in all kinds of different denominations, and this is a characteristic that they all pretty much share.