What martial art should I learn?

[mizanation]

Originally Posted by imightbechad

Aikido is another one of these martial arts people seem to be on the fence about.

To me, it's one of the most graceful of arts. But also the most powerful. Many of these so-called "esoteric" arts, if practiced with the correct intensity, can be as powerful (and overpowering) as any mma or aggressive style.

In the traditional Aikido dojo, for example, one would have to take ukemi - or, the art of falling - for at least 2 years before one could fully participate. I think it's this kind of "old-school" discipline that's been transmuted over the years...especially into this idea of a pat eastern "austerity" that seems so prevalent in western culture.

Chad

i am not on the fence at all about aikido.

where is your evidence that it is one of the "most powerful arts?" where is your evidence that aikido, "if practiced with the correct intensity, can be as powerful (and overpowering as any mma or aggressive style." why would practicing ukemi for 2 years before "fully participating" be helpful at all?

it's not true. you are lying to yourself, brother.

you can say it's graceful. you can say it endorses harmony and peace. but don't say that if done correctly, it is as powerful as "any aggressive style."

this is akin to people who still believe in a flat earth or creationism. it's completely ridiculous. belief in the superiority of aikido is based on an unhealthy worship of morihei ueshiba, who is treated like a god. have you seen his pre-war propaganda videos? have you seen his demonstrations of his power later in life? they are a joke, man. check them out on youtube.

people believe if they practice aikido long enough that they will develop some incredible inner energy that will make them invincible. they believe this because they hear stories of how an old man was able to throw 50 billion people in his dojo with his finger.

but amazingly, the way to develop this strength and martial arts prowess is not by actually training realistically--no, that would be too logical, too un-esoteric. it is through practicing choreographed movements with a partner that willingly flips through the air from a wrist lock.

 

[globetrotter]

Originally Posted by mizanation

i am not on the fence at all about aikido.

where is your evidence that it is one of the "most powerful arts?" where is your evidence that aikido, "if practiced with the correct intensity, can be as powerful (and overpowering as any mma or aggressive style." why would practicing ukemi for 2 years before "fully participating" be helpful at all?

it's not true. you are lying to yourself, brother.

you can say it's graceful. you can say it endorses harmony and peace. but don't say that if done correctly, it is as powerful as "any aggressive style."

this is akin to people who still believe in a flat earth or creationism. it's completely ridiculous. belief in the superiority of aikido is based on an unhealthy worship of morihei ueshiba, who is treated like a god. have you seen his pre-war propaganda videos? have you seen his demonstrations of his power later in life? they are a joke, man. check them out on youtube.

people believe if they practice aikido long enough that they will develop some incredible inner energy that will make them invincible. they believe this because they hear stories of how an old man was able to throw 50 billion people in his dojo with his finger.

but amazingly, the way to develop this strength and martial arts prowess is not by actually training realistically--no, that would be too logical, too un-esoteric. it is through practicing choreographed movements with a partner that willingly flips through the air from a wrist lock.


good post.

this reminds me of the boxer rebellion in china. if you read chinese writtings, it talks about how chinese martial artists were able to do all sorts of fantastic stuff to get the foregners out - if you read western history, a handfull of guys were able to concuer the whole empire in a matter of weeks.


Akido can be great, for certain things. but practicioners have a tendancy to be way over confident as to what they can really do.

 

[retronotmetro]

Originally Posted by mizanation

but amazingly, the way to develop this strength and martial arts prowess is not by actually training realistically--no, that would be too logical, too un-esoteric. it is through practicing choreographed movements with a partner that willingly flips through the air from a wrist lock.

You talkin' smack about aikido? Grab my wrist, muthafucka!

In all seriousness, as a non-aikidoka I think there are some legitimate concepts buried amidst the omoto-kyo baggage. But there are faster and more efficient means to learn them. And from what I have seen, even yoshinkan, reputedly the least religious and "hardest" flavor of aikido, still has the problem of unrealistic assumptions ("uke makes slow, telegraphed punch that will miss and wouldn't have hurt anyhow, tori moves to the side and grabs uke's unretracted hand") If people can make it work for them, great. I'd rather do something else.

 

[The Deacon]

Miz and Globetrotter,

How do you guys feel about Aikijutsu?

This might be an underinformed generalization but-

"Aikido is a spiritual art that uses locks to restrain an attacker.

Aikijutsu is a combat art that uses locks to destroy an attackers limb."

In sparring and exchanging techniques with an Aikijutsu practioner who spent 5 years in Japan training in that art, I saw and felt nothing soft or undestructive about it. Didn't O'sensei have this art as his base?

respectfully,

The Deacon

 

[globetrotter]

I am far from qualified enough to have an opinion. I am speaking from my own, limited, expereince with people who have studied aikido and other very trationally "soft" arts.

what sticks in my head is that people I have known who have invested huge amounts of time and effort in aikido seem to be much less prepared to defend themselves than people who have invested significantly less time and effort in other styles - but that may be specific instances.

Originally Posted by The Deacon

Miz and Globetrotter,

How do you guys feel about Aikijutsu?

This might be an underinformed generalization but-

"Aikido is a spiritual art that uses locks to restrain an attacker.

Aikijutsu is a combat art that uses locks to destroy an attackers limb."

In sparring and exchanging techniques with an Aikijutsu practioner who spent 5 years in Japan training in that art, I saw and felt nothing soft or undestructive about it. Didn't O'sensei have this art as his base?

respectfully,

The Deacon

 

[mizanation]

Originally Posted by The Deacon

Miz and Globetrotter,

How do you guys feel about Aikijutsu?

This might be an underinformed generalization but-

"Aikido is a spiritual art that uses locks to restrain an attacker.

Aikijutsu is a combat art that uses locks to destroy an attackers limb."

In sparring and exchanging techniques with an Aikijutsu practioner who spent 5 years in Japan training in that art, I saw and felt nothing soft or undestructive about it. Didn't O'sensei have this art as his base?

respectfully,

The Deacon

it's all about how you train. if you have a large portion of your training working against a 100% resisting opponent, with a limited amount of rules, you will eventually figure out what works and what doesn't work. after a few months of not being able to do a wrist lock before getting punched in the head or tackled, you will realize that it might not be a good idea. that wrist lock will stop being part of your arsenal. however, if you don't train against a 100% resisting opponent, you will never know that your wristlock doesn't work. then, you will keep that in your aresenal thinking that it's effective.

at the same time, if you focus on training techniques that cannot be safely executed repeatedly against a 100% resisting opponent, then, you are not going to be able to really train it. in this case, it's better to train a less "lethal" technique that can be trained repeatedly and safely, than to drill a "lethal" technique that you can only do against a cooperative opponent or inanimate object.

for example, consider two cases. first case: the eye-poke. it's so "lethal" that you can't train it against a resisting opponent. so, you train the eye-poke on a stuffed dummy for years. you amaze people with your ability to jab your fingers into an inanimate object with accuracy and power. your students train so that one day they will have such a powerful eye-poke, just like sensei. now, you're in a situation where you want to employ your lethal eye-poke in a real-life situation. you suddenly realize that your opponent is not standing still like your stuffed dummy to get eye-poked. he's moving around and punching you, grabbing you, tackling you. now you're screwed and wasted years developing a false sense of security and confidence. all your students have also wasted years of training developing their lethal eye-pokes.

second case, the boxer's jab. it's not as "lethal" as an eye-gouge. but, you can put on gloves and work with a resisting opponent. within months, you are able to read your opponent's movements, you are able to fake, you are able to connect with your jab from different angles. sure, you eat a few punches here and there, but you're wearing headgear, a mouthguard and 16 oz. gloves, so no biggie. you also realize that the jab won't end the fight, but it opens up opportunities to connect with a right cross or left hook. now, you're doing combos. you're doubling up on the jab, etc... a real situation comes a long where you need to defend yourself (unlikely, but just follow me on this), you start jabbing away and throwing combos, etc... and it works because you are used to connecting against an opponent who is moving around and fighting back. you might get popped in the face, but you're used to contact so it doesn't phase you. you know how to roll with the punches, how to keep going.

this is a purposely exaggerated illustration, but it's not too far from the truth.

so, to answer your question, sure, aikijutsu and aikido and whatever can be effective if you train it realistically. but what will happen is that the techniques stop working against a resisting opponent. so, when you discard the useless techniques, what you have left are the techniques that exist in every single martial art that trains realistically.

 

[Eason]

If you're interesting in reading a 34 page discusson on Aikido by aikido practicioners you can read one here: http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=58983 But I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[LA Guy]

Originally Posted by mizanation

it's all about how you train. if you have a large portion of your training working against a 100% resisting opponent, with a limited amount of rules, you will eventually figure out what works and what doesn't work. after a few months of not being able to do a wrist lock before getting punched in the head or tackled, you will realize that it might not be a good idea. that wrist lock will stop being part of your arsenal. however, if you don't train against a 100% resisting opponent, you will never know that your wristlock doesn't work. then, you will keep that in your aresenal thinking that it's effective.

at the same time, if you focus on training techniques that cannot be safely executed repeatedly against a 100% resisting opponent, then, you are not going to be able to really train it. in this case, it's better to train a less "lethal" technique that can be trained repeatedly and safely, than to drill a "lethal" technique that you can only do against a cooperative opponent or inanimate object.

for example, consider two cases. first case: the eye-poke. it's so "lethal" that you can't train it against a resisting opponent. so, you train the eye-poke on a stuffed dummy for years. you amaze people with your ability to jab your fingers into an inanimate object with accuracy and power. your students train so that one day they will have such a powerful eye-poke, just like sensei. now, you're in a situation where you want to employ your lethal eye-poke in a real-life situation. you suddenly realize that your opponent is not standing still like your stuffed dummy to get eye-poked. he's moving around and punching you, grabbing you, tackling you. now you're screwed and wasted years developing a false sense of security and confidence. all your students have also wasted years of training developing their lethal eye-pokes.

second case, the boxer's jab. it's not as "lethal" as an eye-gouge. but, you can put on gloves and work with a resisting opponent. within months, you are able to read your opponent's movements, you are able to fake, you are able to connect with your jab from different angles. sure, you eat a few punches here and there, but you're wearing headgear, a mouthguard and 16 oz. gloves, so no biggie. you also realize that the jab won't end the fight, but it opens up opportunities to connect with a right cross or left hook. now, you're doing combos. you're doubling up on the jab, etc... a real situation comes a long where you need to defend yourself (unlikely, but just follow me on this), you start jabbing away and throwing combos, etc... and it works because you are used to connecting against an opponent who is moving around and fighting back. you might get popped in the face, but you're used to contact so it doesn't phase you. you know how to roll with the punches, how to keep going.

this is a purposely exaggerated illustration, but it's not too far from the truth.

so, to answer your question, sure, aikijutsu and aikido and whatever can be effective if you train it realistically. but what will happen is that the techniques stop working against a resisting opponent. so, when you discard the useless techniques, what you have left are the techniques that exist in every single martial art that trains realistically.

Interestingly, I think that one of the great deficiencies of lots of MMA fighters, including guys who are lauded for their striking abiities, is their lack of boxing skills. I realize that MMA is a very different animal than boxing, but MMA fighters typically lack the ability to control the ring because they have little in the way of footwork, and they tend to open up their chin when they throw out their jabs. This opens them up for knockout punches and doesn't really offer better protection against the other types of strikes allowed in MMA and disallowed in boxing. Most famously, Chuck Liddell got knocked out this way.

I think that his solid training is the primary reason that Anderson Silva, who is a legitimate Muy Thai fighter, is so dominant in his weight category right now.

 

[mizanation]

you're right, there are a lot of mma fighters that have less than stellar boxing. but, like you said, you have to consider how boxing has to be modified for mma:

1) you have three short rounds (five if it's a championship fight) whereas in boxing, you are dealing with 10 to 12 rounds. this means that in boxing, you can spread out your offense over the course of the fight. in mma, you have to make it happen in three rounds. in boxing, you can use jabs and body shots which take longer to take their toll. in mma, body shots and jabs take too long to cause damage. jabs are used to set up other combos, not for primary damage. that's why you see a lot of power shots in mma, because of the lack of rounds.

2) takedowns and kicks are allowed. what this means is that mma fighters have to have a more head-on stance to defend the shot. this means less "cutie" boxing, which usually requires a side stance (to increase jab length), ala sugar ray robinson. also, a more square stance makes it easier to defend against kicks.

3) clinch range. when people get close enough to punch each other, what usually comes next is the clinch range. in pro-boxing, this is where the ref would split the fighters up. in mma, this is where the fight continues. this is another reason why you don't see "pro-boxing style" boxing.

4) mma gloves. mma gloves not only have less padding, but also have less area. what this means is that the glove covers less of your head and punches have more room to go through. in boxing, you would use your glove to defend your chin, but in mma, you need to use your arms. also, a punch in mma lands a lot harder than in boxing. so, a punch that wouldn't knock someone out in boxing might knock out a lot of people in mma.

about your comment on footwork, again, it's the nature of the game. footwork mma is more similar to wrestling footwork--you have to be able to shoot and sprawl. boxing footwork would leave you susceptible for shots.

 

[LA Guy]

Well, MMA fighters deficiencies in boxing are primarily defensive. In fact, good head movement is probably the best defensive against the looping power punches and straight down the line punches that MMA fighters are fond of.

And good footwork is good footwork. There is a tendency to stand and deliver in MMA, and also a tendency by most fighters to take the charge by backing up, because they are simply not very good at working the angles. Good footwork is a great way to frustrate a powerful fighter. A weaker fighter can use angles and an in-and-out approach to frustrate a stronger fighter. in their title bout, Ibragimov used distance and the ring to beat the much more powerful Shannon Briggs.

Similarly, good footwork and ring control is a way for a powerful striker to neutralized the defenses of an opponent. The second fight between Franklin and Silva was a really good demonstration not just of Silva's terrific power, which is indisputable, but also of his ability to control the space. He also demonstrated good head movement, which allowed him to avoid Franklin's powerful punches without ceding any of the space that he had taken away from Franklin. If Franklin had been able to control the ring somewhat better, he would have been able to last against Silva at least a little longer.

 

[Eason]

Originally Posted by LA Guy

Interestingly, I think that one of the great deficiencies of lots of MMA fighters, including guys who are lauded for their striking abiities, is their lack of boxing skills. I realize that MMA is a very different animal than boxing, but MMA fighters typically lack the ability to control the ring because they have little in the way of footwork, and they tend to open up their chin when they throw out their jabs. This opens them up for knockout punches and doesn't really offer better protection against the other types of strikes allowed in MMA and disallowed in boxing. Most famously, Chuck Liddell got knocked out this way.

I think that his solid training is the primary reason that Anderson Silva, who is a legitimate Muy Thai fighter, is so dominant in his weight category right now.

Even among other top Muay Thai fighters in his class, Anderson Silva was still head and shoulders above them. He is that good. Chuck Liddell got knocked out because he's an unorthodox striker who has yet to modify his style in about 8 years, and he was fed wrestlers without solid striking for the longest time until he finally got his rematch against Jackson, who obliterated him the first time. The fact that he allowed Keith Jardine to beat him in his last fight was pretty much the last straw in patience I had for him, and I've been a Chuck Hater for a long long time.

 

[LA Guy]

I'm not sure who I would rather face in the Octagon, Rampage Jackson, or Anderson Silva. I mean, either would knock me out cold as soon as I ran out of running space (so, let's say, 3 seconds), but I wonder which one would cause less lasting damage. Is a knee to the face by a big guy going to cause more or less lasting damage than a punch to the side of the head by an even stronger guy? Or do I have the necessary skill to put myself into a guillotine choke before they can punch or kick me unconscious? Yeah, I'd try for that. I've heard that they are both decent guys, so maybe they would spare me a CAT scan and a trip to the reconstructive surgeon.

 

[mizanation]

let's just say getting fucked up by rampage would be a LOT more painful than anderson silva.

btw, i think another reason why you don't see a lot of top-caliber boxing in mma is because if you're that good at boxing, you would probably just box. the money difference at the highest level is still pretty big. the money difference between a top level kickboxer and top level mma fighter is not that much different, depending on a bunch of factors.

 

[Ambulance Chaser]

Originally Posted by LA Guy

I'm not sure who I would rather face in the Octagon, Rampage Jackson, or Anderson Silva. I mean, either would knock me out cold as soon as I ran out of running space (so, let's say, 3 seconds), but I wonder which one would cause less lasting damage. Is a knee to the face by a big guy going to cause more or less lasting damage than a punch to the side of the head by an even stronger guy? Or do I have the necessary skill to put myself into a guillotine choke before they can punch or kick me unconscious? Yeah, I'd try for that. I've heard that they are both decent guys, so maybe they would spare me a CAT scan and a trip to the reconstructive surgeon.
Top five guys you couldn't pay me enough money to face in the Octagon:

1. Kevin Randleman. Full of roid rage and ready to pick you up and slam you on your neck.
2. Keith Hackney (under old rules). He'll make sure you never have children.
3. Mirko Cro Cop. Right leg hospital, left leg cemetery.
4. Anderson Silva. At least when you're on the phone after the fight with your plastic surgeon making an appointment for a rhinoplasty, Anderson will come over and say he's sorry.
5. Wanderlei Silva. The staredown and glove thing he does from across the cage is enough to make you want to run and hide.

 

[The Deacon]

There's always Fred...

Shunning the limelight, Grandmaster Fredrick J. Villari has accomplished much with a minimum of publicity. He's rarely seen in martial arts magazines.

However 10,000 Black Belts and 15 million students after its conception Fred Villari's Studios are now a far cry from the days when Fred Villari taught two students at seven in the morning in a walk-up studio in Waltham Massachusetts. The name Villari and Shaolin Kempo Karate is synonymous with East Coast Kempo. In 1995, annual Villari national tournament, held at the World Trade Center (Boston), drew 10,000 spectators to watch 5,000 participants.

As a young person growing up Villari studied martial arts with his father. Later he was exposed to and studied several martial arts styles. During this period he and Nick Cerio corresponded and trained with Professor William K.S. Chow. Villari's approach to Kempo was to maintain the style as he learned it through Chow and that is how it is presented in the Villari System today. Fred Villari realized, because of his varied wealth of experience and his dedication in seeking the ultimate fighting system, that each method offered something unique, and each also had its glaring weaknesses that could make a fighter vulnerable. Grandmaster Villari concluded that there really were only four ways of fighting.

1. With your hands (punching, striking - open or closed hand) or use of any part of the arms, elbows, forearms, etc.
2. Kicking (with foot, leg, knee, shin)
3. Felling - that is to knock an opponent off his feet by throwing, tripping, pulling, pushing, shoving, or scooping him
4. Grappling - by either wrestling, holding, breaking, locking bones or joints against nerve centers
Grandmaster Villari realized that the ultimate in self-defense lay not in one way or style of fighting. By combining the "Four Ways of Fighting." he devised and developed ways to integrate diverse methods of fighting into one, eliminating weaknesses and vulnerabilities. This is the central theory and method behind Villari's art of Shaolin Kempo Karate.

The backbone of the Villari's style is the Shaolin system since he felt it was the best for promoting overall good health, wisdom and longevity. This system is well balanced, incorporating mind, body and spirit into one.

Villari promoted his ideas well through solid instruction and modern business practices. Eventually his method was spread throughout the world as more than 500 schools have been opened that teach his method. His contribution helped open the way of the Asian martial arts, on a massive scale, to the ordinary layman. Villari is still actively teaching and demonstrating the martial arts in his schools today.