Your video, MMA Fighter shows exactly what happened to George Floyd, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Fighting on the street isn't even comparable to MMA. Not to take away from the hardness of any MMA fighter, but MMA is a sport. There are rules, and it's a safe environment (as safe as can be considering what happens in the octagon). You don't have to worry about the other guy poking your eye out or biting you, you probably won't die, etc.

The best thing for self defense is to be able to identify a dangerous situation, and get away from it using any means necessary, before it escalates. Getting into your car and driving away is the best thing you can do.

The other part of it is not looking like a victim, it's a body language thing.

And in these cases, Aikido is as good as any other martial art.


Having said that I'd still love to see someone use Aikido in an MMA match just for entertainment, because the only videos I've ever seen are ones like this, where the partner is going with the flow to avoid injury.


Actually now that I think about it, are you allowed to dislocate/break joints in MMA? Because the damage is likely to be permanent.

Most martial arts are simply too specific for MMA (Teakwondo for example), and Aikido is certainly one of them. That's why many MMA fighters train in Jiu-Jitsu, it's a grabbag of techniques.
Aikido is great with throws, joint-locks and evasive moves but that's mostly it. There's no emphasis on kicking, punching or holding techniques. An Aikido-practitioner won't choke you out, he or she will break your shit. Bend your joints in ways they shouldn't or straight up break your arm. You can't unleash that in a ring where people go to earn money. No matter how many punches you can take, how many throws you can recover from, a broken wrist will end your fight. And then you're out of a job and training until it's healed for a couple of weeks.
Aikido is not flexible enough to be effective and too damaging once it can be used for full effect.
And it does work in real life, it's just the conditions for success are far narrower than with other, more versatile martial arts. That's why Krav Maga works so well in real life, it just goes to what causes the most effect. So a lot of ballskicking. And punching. And Kneeing. All the balls, all the time.

So cards on the table: I am a 4th Dan student of Aikido.

I had initially written a long response explaining why I disagree with you, but I realised I don't really care and you're unlikely to change your opinion.

Each martial art (traditional, modern, boxing, HEMA, whatever) offers something different to its practitioners. If you enjoy it, keep doing it.

I'd probably get destroyed by a competent MMA fighter, but I don't do Aikido to win MMA matches.

Can I defend myself on the street? Dunno... haven't been in a fight in decades, and don't intend to either.

Do I still enjoy Aikido? Fuck yeah.

I feel more sad for the real MMA fighter. Who wants their first fight to be against an untrained opponent that you end up hurting so badly they need medical attention? You could even tell she was upset over it, after she realized how badly the idiot lady was hurt.

http://deadspin.com/mma-fighter-evangeline-santos-suffers-gruesome-skull-fr-1783844000

Just a bit.

Feminist icon? The superhero whose weakness is mild bondage sessions with men?

And regarding Gal Gadot and her "wrong body type", in today's world, the closest to an Amazon would be an MMA fighter like Gina Carano. I'd be fine with that but I also like Pretzel-flavoured ice cream.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Surprised she doesn't have "cauliflower ear" like a lot of MMA fighters.

Another example of 'I'm a cop, so let me tell you how the world works (from my misguided, self serving, myopic viewpoint) because only cops know...'
From your statement, one could reasonably ask 'why do cops have tasers at all then? You seem to say there's no time it would be reasonable to use one instead of a gun, because you don't know if your suspect is armed, an Olympic sprinter, an MMA fighter, on PCP, or any other made up excuse you might think of for shooting him out of your fear (of what exactly? It's unclear) instead of for a legitimate reason.
Your fear is NOT a reason to shoot citizens. It's amazing that someone needs to tell that to a 30 year officer, just amazingly sad. If you are so fearful of anyone not ensconced in blue, you certainly should not have been an officer. We need better psych screening, and braver officers.

The slingshot does "hit harder" i.e. impart more momentum into the target and thus more likely to knock you down.
Intuitively this seems like it would therefore cause the most damage and for several 100 years this was the prevailing logic with muskets and cannonballs.

So much so in fact that when Charles Whitworth first introduced his rifle it was dismissed by the British army partly for having too small of a bullet. Whitworth used a smaller more stable round for its increased range and accuracy/stability (though there were also concerns about "muzzle fouling" and slower reload time).
It was believed at the time that the larger (slower) much less accurate bullets from the Enfield were more effective at actually injuring enemy soldiers, but history later demonstrated that speed and penetration can have just as much (if not more) effect on soft bodies than sheer mass and momentum.

Simply put, that large slingshot round would likely knock you to the floor in the same was as an MMA fighter landing a roundhouse square in your guts would. It might even penetrate the skin a bit and embed itself in you. What it won't do however is travel through your soft tissues at high velocity and create a large "temporary cavity" which is how most firearms do their real damage.

The 9mm etc. don't carry as much overall energy as the slingshot, but they do deliver it to a soft target much more effectively (that is to say lethally). A much more informative test would have been to fire them into ballistic clay, this would have highlighted the differences between speed, momentum and penetration much more clearly. The slingshot would leave a massive dint, the bullets would leave tunnels.

That said, the point they are making does stand to some extent. If you used that slingshot on someone that was trying to shoot you there is a good chance you'd knock them down (or at least stop them taking an aimed shot back for a few seconds). Hell you might even hospitalise them with a good shot!

It's not fair to say that the slingshot is a more "powerful" weapon but I think they did clearly demonstrate that it's a viable alternative under some circumstances. In fact for defending yourself in your own home etc. it might even be better!

Little/no risk of collateral damage (unless you miss really badly)
Very cheap
Would put most people on the floor with one good hit
No firearms licence or background checks needed
More difficult for a child to misuse (Most kids would lack the strength)
Enemy wouldn't expect it
Much less likely to kill
etc. etc.

Hell I'd get one myself if UK law wouldn't fk me over for using it.
It's illegal here to use a weapon specifically intended or kept for defense. i.e. if you grab a random object like a chair and beat up an intruder that's ok, if you have a baseball bat etc. by your bedside for expressly this purpose then it's not.
Handy then that one of my broken computer chairs happens to contain a loose 1ft long iron bar. Naturally I'd never even consider using such a thing violently, but who knows what might come to hand when faced with an intruder

(Seriously though, as broken furniture its a viable means of defence, if I kept it by my bedside as a "weapon" I'd be breaking the letter of the law by using it. Fucking stupid!)

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, MMA fighter flips out when he sees his EA video game stats, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'baddest, Fedor, Emelianenko, mma, fighter, fight, in russia glove punch YOU' to 'Fedor Emelianenko, mma, fighter, fight, pride' - edited by xxovercastxx

I have a friend who was well trained in Wing Chun (male) and although yes there is some legitimacy in regards to balance, center line etc, the reality was that he was mostly effective due to the distribution of his mass/weight and often only against those who couldn't fight or more specifically didn't know how to defend.

I don't see much mass in these hostesses and given my experience, I don't believe they would be reliably effective against most decent sized untrained male opponents with this style alone, especially when the situation gets to the floor as most aggressive interactions inevitably do.

To provide a comparison, one of my friends has trained in Karate since he was 6 years old, went on to Tae Kwon Do, Boxing, a few others, then heavily into Mixed Martial Arts about 8 years ago and now trains with professional MMA fighters. As far back as a decade ago my Wing Chun (no other martial arts) friend couldn't do shit to him if his life depended on it.

Why?
Wing Chun focuses on blocking and controlling your opponents movements with pressure points and shifting your opponents weight, and this really doesn't cut it in real situations when your opponent isn't trying to hug you into submission, or when a punch just needs to slip though and connect with the base of your chin for a KO, or a lucky hit that simply takes you to the ground.

Now, I'm not saying this idea is completely dangerously delusional, i think it's a good idea in principle to train airline staff including pilots, but feel they are doing it less than effectively as they could.

The point I'm making is that any 1 martial arts is simply not effectively reliable in most confrontational situations due to most/all martial arts having a fair bit of bullshit inter-weaved with legitimate capabilities.

** If airlines are going to train/encourage hostesses to intervene with dangerous individuals they should be teaching the genuinely proven to be effective portions of various martial arts.. to which Wing Chun would play a role imo for upright close combat, but also focusing on some aspects of Judo for take-downs and take-down-defense & Brazilian Jiu Jitsu for when the shit hits the mat, which are all great arts for females and males alike as technique is the key and an individuals power isn't a primary focus for any of these.

Good on them for taking the initiative.

And that's why Aleksander looks so calm before a fight. In turn, guys like Aleksander explain why these guys wear body armor and work in large groups.