Joe Rogan vs Aikido Guy

Edited

I think this is partially the different philosophies of the different martial arts Japan has spawned, and how many are more than just fighting, but also incorporate a philosophy into their systems.

I've been skimming, so I can't say for sure (at work, or else it would get a full read), but I believe this all begins with Aiki-Jujutsu, which has roots back 900 years, but became popular in the 20th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dait%C5%8D-ry%C5%AB_Aiki-j%C5%ABjutsu

Aiki-jūjutsu can be broken into three styles: jujutsu (hard); aiki no jutsu (soft); and the combined aikijujutsu (hard/soft). Modern Japanese jujutsu and aikido both originated in aikijujutsu, which emphasizes "an early neutralization of an attack"

So aikido evolved from this style. This style is likely more what you would look for in a true martial art, as I expect (I don't know) that it's "harder" and less "dancey"[sic] than aikido. So why is aikido so different? Well, it makes more sense when you break the word "aikido" down.

道 – dō – way, path

In this case, meaning more of a philosophical or spiritual path.

On the other hand, "Jitsu", as in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu...

"Jutsu" can be translated to mean "art" or "technique" and represents manipulating the opponent's force against himself rather than confronting it with one's own force.

So you can see clear differences in the philosophy behind the styles if you understand the etymology of the Japanese names. Most westerners don't, so it just goes over our heads.

Aikido is a modern Japanese martial art developed by Morihei Ueshiba as a synthesis of his martial studies, philosophy, and religious beliefs. Aikido is often translated as "the way of unifying (with) life energy" or as "the way of harmonious spirit". Ueshiba's goal was to create an art that practitioners could use to defend themselves while also protecting their attacker from injury.

So learning how to fight isn't the only element of this particular martial art - it's also a personal philosophy and religious beliefs as well. And this shows in the way the style acts and operates, as it's actually incredibly difficult to reliably defend yourself from a peer or near-peer attacker without harming them.

The most common criticism of aikido is that it suffers from a lack of realism in training. The attacks initiated by uke (and which tori must defend against) have been criticized as being "weak", "sloppy", and "little more than caricatures of an attack". Weak attacks from uke allow for a conditioned response from tori, and result in underdevelopment of the skills needed for the safe and effective practice of both partners. To counteract this, some styles allow students to become less compliant over time but, in keeping with the core philosophies, this is after having demonstrated proficiency in being able to protect themselves and their training partners. Shodokan Aikido addresses the issue by practising in a competitive format. Such adaptations are debated between styles, with some maintaining that there is no need to adjust their methods because either the criticisms are unjustified, or that they are not training for self-defense or combat effectiveness, but spiritual, fitness or other reasons.

It may well be that this guy you were with has a mentor (trainer, instructor, whatever), who is teaching him a style that is less on the martial art and more on the philosophy, even he doesn't outright say it (or fully understand it himself; lots of half-learned "teachers" out there, too).

You can see this same difference in philosophy in the difference between judo and jiujitsu.

Judo (柔道 jūdō, meaning "gentle way") was created as a physical, mental and moral pedagogy in Japan, in 1882, by Jigoro Kano (嘉納治五郎).

"Moral pedagogy". Bringing non martial-arts elements into it.

Jujutsu (westernized as jiu-jitsu), is a Japanese martial art and a method of close combat for defeating an armed and armored opponent in which one uses no weapon or only a short weapon.

There's a bit there, but I wanted to be thorough. I think that's why you were dissatisfied with Aikido as a martial art - it has these other elements in there that "dilute the water", so to speak. One of the more focused styles (since there are many), or someone who trains in Aiki-Jiu-Jitsu in particular, might be more to the speed of a "true" martial art.

I think this is partially the different philosophies of the different martial arts Japan has spawned, and how many are more than just fighting, but also incorporate a philosophy into their systems. I've been skimming, so I can't say for sure (at work, or else it would get a full read), but I believe this all begins with Aiki-Jujutsu, which has roots back 900 years, but became popular in the 20th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dait%C5%8D-ry%C5%AB_Aiki-j%C5%ABjutsu > Aiki-jūjutsu can be broken into three styles: jujutsu (hard); aiki no jutsu (soft); and the combined aikijujutsu (hard/soft). Modern Japanese jujutsu and aikido both originated in aikijujutsu, which emphasizes "an early neutralization of an attack" So aikido evolved from this style. This style is likely more what you would look for in a true martial art, as I expect (I don't know) that it's "harder" and less "dancey"[sic] than aikido. So why is aikido so different? Well, it makes more sense when you break the word "aikido" down. > 道 – dō – way, path In this case, meaning more of a philosophical or spiritual path. On the other hand, "Jitsu", as in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu... > "Jutsu" can be translated to mean "art" or "technique" and represents manipulating the opponent's force against himself rather than confronting it with one's own force. So you can see clear differences in the philosophy behind the styles if you understand the etymology of the Japanese names. Most westerners don't, so it just goes over our heads. > Aikido is a modern Japanese martial art developed by Morihei Ueshiba as a synthesis of his **martial studies, philosophy, and religious beliefs**. Aikido is often translated as "the way of unifying (with) life energy" or as "the way of harmonious spirit". Ueshiba's goal was to create an art that practitioners could use to defend themselves while also protecting their attacker from injury. So learning how to fight isn't the only element of this particular martial art - it's also a personal philosophy and religious beliefs as well. And this shows in the way the style acts and operates, as it's actually _incredibly_ difficult to reliably defend yourself from a peer or near-peer attacker without harming them. > The most common criticism of aikido is that it suffers from a lack of realism in training. The attacks initiated by uke (and which tori must defend against) have been criticized as being "weak", "sloppy", and "little more than caricatures of an attack". Weak attacks from uke allow for a conditioned response from tori, and result in underdevelopment of the skills needed for the safe and effective practice of both partners. To counteract this, some styles allow students to become less compliant over time but, in keeping with the core philosophies, this is after having demonstrated proficiency in being able to protect themselves and their training partners. Shodokan Aikido addresses the issue by practising in a competitive format. Such adaptations are debated between styles, with some maintaining that there is no need to adjust their methods because either the criticisms are unjustified, or that they are not training for self-defense or combat effectiveness, but spiritual, fitness or other reasons. It may well be that this guy you were with has a mentor (trainer, instructor, whatever), who is teaching him a style that is less on the martial art and more on the philosophy, even he doesn't outright say it (or fully understand it himself; lots of half-learned "teachers" out there, too). You can see this same difference in philosophy in the difference between **judo** and **jiujitsu**. > Judo (柔道 jūdō, meaning "gentle way") was created as a physical, mental and moral pedagogy in Japan, in 1882, by Jigoro Kano (嘉納治五郎). "Moral pedagogy". Bringing non martial-arts elements into it. > Jujutsu (westernized as jiu-jitsu), is a Japanese martial art and a method of close combat for defeating an armed and armored opponent in which one uses no weapon or only a short weapon. There's a bit there, but I wanted to be thorough. I think that's why you were dissatisfied with Aikido as a martial art - it has these other elements in there that "dilute the water", so to speak. One of the more focused styles (since there are many), or someone who trains in Aiki-Jiu-Jitsu in particular, might be more to the speed of a "true" martial art.

[–] InnocentBystander [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

Edited

Ueshiba's goal was to create an art that practitioners could use to defend themselves while also protecting their attacker from injury.

Wrestling is far superior for that, especially since Akido uses so much joint manipulation, which does cause great injury.
If I remember correctly, Aikido originally specialized in defending against an armed opponent. In that context, it actually makes more sense. Many of the routines are laughable when tried against another unarmed opponent, but start to make more sense if you imagine the opponent with a sword.

I think that's why you were dissatisfied with Aikido as a martial art

You are correct, but it goes a bit further. I don't think Akido can be considered a form of self defense, or a martial art.
It is like Tai chi, it may have grown from a martial art, but it no longer is one.

All of the 'techniques' are routines. Routines do not work in real combat.
In many cases I would wager that an untrained opponent would be better off in a fight because anyone trying Akido is going to open themselves up in easily exploited ways, while having a false confidence.

Nobody trained in Akido has ever won a sanctioned mma bout. Ever.
Every recording of unsanctioned fights or sparing between Akido and 'others' ends with Akido-guy getting destroyed.

As an art? Sure. Sport? Sure. Exercise, athleticism etc. Sure.
Combat? No way, you'll get hurt.
The guy I knew had been training for many years, and was quite good. He believed that in a real fight he would dominate any untrained opponent.
Eventually I broke it to him that his art was not combat. He didn't believe me until I took him out back and told him to come at me full force.
I had to throw him to the ground a few times before he would actually try his best. But it didn't matter, his decade of training, and larger stronger build were not enough to challenge my 6 months of Kung-fu and 1 year of wrestling.

If he had been untrained, he may have been able to beat me due to his size and strength advantage. But I wrecked him because he kept trying routines that I would interrupt on him.

>Ueshiba's goal was to create an art that practitioners could use to defend themselves while also protecting their attacker from injury. Wrestling is far superior for that, especially since Akido uses so much joint manipulation, which does cause great injury. If I remember correctly, Aikido originally specialized in defending against an armed opponent. In that context, it actually makes more sense. Many of the routines are laughable when tried against another unarmed opponent, but start to make more sense if you imagine the opponent with a sword. > I think that's why you were dissatisfied with Aikido as a martial art You are correct, but it goes a bit further. I don't think Akido can be considered a form of self defense, or a martial art. It is like Tai chi, it may have grown from a martial art, but it no longer is one. All of the 'techniques' are routines. Routines do not work in real combat. In many cases I would wager that an untrained opponent would be better off in a fight because anyone trying Akido is going to open themselves up in easily exploited ways, while having a false confidence. Nobody trained in Akido has ever won a sanctioned mma bout. Ever. Every recording of unsanctioned fights or sparing between Akido and 'others' ends with Akido-guy getting destroyed. As an art? Sure. Sport? Sure. Exercise, athleticism etc. Sure. Combat? No way, you'll get hurt. The guy I knew had been training for many years, and was quite good. He believed that in a real fight he would dominate any untrained opponent. Eventually I broke it to him that his art was not combat. He didn't believe me until I took him out back and told him to come at me full force. I had to throw him to the ground a few times before he would actually try his best. But it didn't matter, his decade of training, and larger stronger build were not enough to challenge my 6 months of Kung-fu and 1 year of wrestling. If he had been untrained, he may have been able to beat me due to his size and strength advantage. But I wrecked him because he kept trying routines that I would interrupt on him.

Joe Rogan vs Aikido Guy

3 comments

/s/MMA