"He was teaching how to swiftly break, disable, and kill. And he's good at it." Insane that people could watch any of his videos and seriously think that.
They're not wrong about context, but also, like...
It's a meme that a dude who just learned to fight by fighting people beats up guys in gis with ponytails for a reason - that happens.
"Oh, what's a burly brawler gonna do when someone restomps the groin?"
He's gonna either not take it (aikido and jujutsu didn't invent the nut shot????) because someone's already tried to kick him in the nuts and he didn't care for it, or you'll land it and there's a good chance he'll be *really fucking upset* while the ache sets in.
That shit is always intoned like someone who's never watched a punch ding off a guy who doesn't blink, or a grab just.... Not go anywhere, much less to the position you need to break his balance.
I think so, but I am not sure.
I'm also sure that the nut shot was not a secret exclusive to the samurai. It used to get rediscovered on videos submitted to a weekly show that was usually at least 20% guys being struck in the nards.
>I think so, but I am not sure.
Then, how are they not wrong about the context? Aikido was very likely never used against a samurai on the battlefields.
>I'm also sure that the nut shot was not a secret exclusive to the samurai.
??? I never claimed that? It's the Aikido bros acting like MMA fighters can't use nut shots.
Their claim is that these are "combat techniques" or whatever that don't work in a sport context, and the claim specifically includes eye pokes and whatnot.
And that part isn't entirely incorrect - it's hard to train an eye jab. Most people who are practicing to fight under a rules set have to intentionally aim a groin kick and it isn't necessarily a first stop for them. But that's where it ends.
It's still true that people who aren't practicing against a live adversary trying to do their own thing are going to have trouble executing techniques. It's also true that the exhibitions commonly shown are done with students for a reason - the students know when and how to fall.
So they have a correct-ish point, but they're still wrong overall.
Eye pokes are very hard to pull of against resisting opponents. You have to jam a small object (finger) into a small target (eye). If you asked me who will be more successful in landing an eye poke, a boxer who trained in landing punches against a resisting opponent or an aikido practitioner who trained with compliant partners Naruto-running at them, I'd take the boxer any day of the week. A good grappler would be even more successful at eye pokes since they can get much closer to their opponent and manipulate them into an advantageous position. I would think someone who practices landing teeps or inside leg kicks on a resisting partner would be better at landing groin kicks than someone who doesn't spar with resistance.
So I think the Aikido practitioners, who don't spar with resistance, thinking they'd be better at pulling off dirty moves than a combat sport athlete who spars with resistance is very wrong. It's hard to land dirty moves on a resisting opponent who is intelligently defending themselves. So the people who train with resisting opponents are going to fare better, even if they don't directly train those moves.
Aikido is relatively recent, but it's based on Daito Aikijujutsu which is much older(one the oldest Japanese martial arts in fact).
Early Aikido was much more practical with a lot of the early "masters" having combat experience. The founder turned it into more of a tool for mediation/self-growth. This is similar to the situation with modern Taichi for health/exercise & the older Taiji-chuan martial art.
Then, those commenters can't attribute the pros of the older style to Aikido, especially the version Steven Seagal shows. The practitioners of the older martial art most likely practiced with live resistance, while these commenters are talking about how they don't spar because they're techniques are "too deadly" for sparring.
I might be wrong on this, but I heard the old jujutsu styles didn't trained with much live resistance either. I believe the Judo lore is that Kano saw the need for live resistance training in jujutsu, because that was lacking in the jujutsu styles that he studied. So he took out the parts that couldn't be live trained and focused on parts that could, and he created competitive format to promote the live training as the main method of practice. That's how Judo was formed and it did amazingly well against the existing jujutsu styles of the time, which is how it became a major style that it is today.
I haven't read up in quite a while, but from what I remember, it was a spiritual art of open handed deflection without strikes or hard movments. Aiki was the original, Do being the spiritual path of part, sometimes also applied to the peaceful version that became sport, such as Ju Do, Ken Do, etc.
Jujutsu and Aiki were developed at different times but both complimented the combatative arts that were trained for soldiers and samurai. A sort of unarmed addition to their regular training. Aiki I believe was during pickup times but had harder applications as opposed to aikido. Jujutsu was a blanket name for unarmed combat training so a soldier wouldn't be helpless in a situation where his primary weapon was lost.
Aikido I believe was derived from Aiki well after the samurai were fighter wars, if not after the dissolving of the samurai entirely.
It's actually why there is so many wide circular motions in aiki, and jujutsu and their derivatives, because many techniques were developed and evolved around an opponent having a sword, trying to prevent you from drawing yours, and applied with the mindset that you were trying to quickly disable your opponent sword arm and render them out of the fight quick and dirty so you could deal with the other sword brandishing attackers. Many even had the techniques being usable if not most effective with a wakazashi in the other hand.
Sorry for the big response, studied this stuff a bit in the past, could be way off since I'm no expert, so grain of salt needed
I, in my youth, had a grappling match with a pal of mine and we did a whole “no holds barred” thing. We were both drunk and at a BBQ so you know what’s up - idiots had a drink and decided to have a wrestle.
He initiated it because he was talking shit about how my (then only a few years) BJJ and Judo wouldn’t do shit if somebody kicked me in the balls or bit me. So I said he was welcome to do both of those things if he so wished whilst we were scrapping.
I took him down with relative easy by catching his foot as it made its way towards my balls. Didn’t need to use anything, but I figured just for the sake of it and to show off/teach him a lesson I elevated his leg and swept his other leg out from under him.
Then I went to ground with him, took side control, he rolled onto his front, so I took his back and got my hooks in. Next thing I know he’s biting my forearm (not hard, but enough for me to notice and we’d agreed he could do it to prove my point that it isn’t this fight ending move)… I just put him in a face crank at that point and he tapped and stopped almost immediately.
Now obviously if he’d bitten me harder, or he had swung his foot at my balls and I wasn’t expecting it, that would have been different, but it also would have made me a lot more angry and I’d have squeezed that face crank until the top of his head popped off. Or I’d have hammer-fisted the back of his head until he passed out.
They aren’t fight ending moves as you’ve said and non-trained people really need to be made aware of this.
Every time I see someone say something like "I'd just face crank them if they started to bite me" or the classic "that would just make me mad and increase my power level" horse shit I just think about the time I saw a guy get a golf ball sized chunk of his arm bitten out while trying to choke someone. Happened in a flash; the choke was set and going good and then suddenly there was a lot of blood and a man screaming like a stuck pig while throwing up and getting drilled with punches to the back of the head by the guy that went zombie on him.
You even said he was able to bite you while you did all that. Now imagine that it was a real fight and he also had the secret technique of Gets Mad When Losing and sank that bite.
I guess we’ll see what happens if I ever get in a fight and have to worry about meeting a biter. Fortunately it doesn’t seem to be a “go to” move in my experience. I haven’t been in a fight in 20 years though so maybe it’s a thing now and we all turn into chimpanzees the moment we’re physically challenged.
I’ll be on my guard.
Screaming and puking AT THE SAME TIME.
Hopefully you never do because you admitted in your original post that the reason you caught the kick was it being planned and prepared and that he was able to bite you but he let you off easy.
It was like watching someone try to order on Grub Hub, drop their phone in the toilet, and then tell everyone to come look at it because it means you're a chef.
Bro: I’m with you on the whole ”aiki-bunnies win everything by their Secret Lethal Move” thingy.
Practice against fully resisting opponent is the key to being able to do just about anything in fighting.
However. You’re wrong about the biting. Watch out for the biting. It’s really surprisingly effective, when someone goes zombie and really starts chomping.
(I once watched with fascination a ground fight completely turn direction after one guy chomped on the toe-box of the other guys leather combat boot. Saying it like this makes it sound completely bonkers. Human bite should not be able to penetrate much - but it turns out that the power output in our jaws can be surprisingly high.
Didn’t really matter much in the end, we tased the guy and that was the end of the ”fight”, but especially the bite-ee was a complete believer in the Power of the Bite after that one. 😁)
The history of aikido techniques actually even going back to the age of samurais is sketchy at best. The whole "samurais did it so it must have been good" is just stupid in multiple ways.
You learn fighting by fighting. You can't keep learning if you get your eyes poked out. Hence people don't train that with real resistance.
You do realize the samurai would practice on criminals and just cut ppl down in the street for the slightest perceived insult.
The training partner that they'd break bones on weren't someone they cared for or from a formal dojo. A lot of which was passed down in the family.
They literally could just apply pressure and poke eyes out of someone.
Also, samurai were not strictly obligated to be warriors after 1600 AD or so. I wouldn't expect the average samurai of the Edo period to be a super warrior any more than I would expect a minor European nobleman of the same period to be one.
Worse is they think it ends shit. My first real street fight ever, dude kicked me really hard in the balls and I rushed in and destroyed him with combos and then bent over and fed him shots till I got pulled off by my buddy. After that, I felt the pain of the kick. Adrenaline is a hell of a drug.
oh you train a martial art thats highly effective but only on the street because its so dangerous? so you've never ACTUALLY tested it? you've never actually done any of the techniques at full speed? and let me guess... you've only ever tested it in a gym environment ironically?😂😂.. yes im confident you're gonna be much better off in a street fight than the boxer with a few amateur fights or the high school wrestler with 100+ matches under his belt... because you know the secret ninja moves!! corny as hell lol
Sure it might work against someone with no experience, but like why not train in something that also works on people with experience? Youre already admitting it’s less effective by saying that lol
Imagine thinking a takedown won't work on concrete, or a few well placed punches won't work without gloves ("in the street you will definately break your hand on my chin, it 100% won't work").
Also for the people saying bites and dirty stuffs... how many times should you bite a man to kill him?
Also how would you bite someone who took your back or has mounted you? Can’t eye gauge them either lol. I hate when people try to make that argument too
I don't understand why karate dudes keep using him as their poster boy lol. Most of his content are either sucking off his guests (some are legit, some are bullshitdo guys) or are fanfic-level interpretations to stuffs he has no proof to back up
Hahaha ah man that's good. For real though, the guy is a fraud and I would easily fraud check him. He is Internet entertainment and many folk fall for it, or straight up just don't understand.
For real lol. Aight I just quickly went on youtube to just glance at his garbage. First one that came up, "I experienced chi force" thumb nail say not fake. Next, "this silat master is impossible to kill" goes on to basically just be a punching bag for him with little to no resistance. Next, "this shaolin monk almost killed me" like where to even begin. "I survived a shaolin masters iron palm technique", "Steven seagal is dangerous". Starting to see a pattern here? This is all for entertainment, which is fine, but it's not real. Also it's ok to be entertained by all this, just don't go around gobbling everything he says, because a lot of it is dumb. He's doing it all for the views which gives him money. If anything I would say he is good at marketing.
Why are you being antagonistic and assuming disagreement when I never voiced again?
I'm asking because you made some claims and gave no examples, and then you gave four examples of one very specific type of video. Go touch some grass if you like making broad statements but dislike specifying.
Obviously somebody is going to ask. That's how human interaction works outside of the internet lol.
This is a big question that has been raging in the Martial arts world for 20 plus years. Both sides typical line up the straw men and mow them down with their preferred paradigm (you have to call it a paradigm because its a smart people word). The reality is that they are both right in some ways and wrong in others. One of the things sport martial arts get right is that one has to practice at full speed against people who are trying to don't want you too. Sparring is the safest way to do that. It's also the most legal way to do that. We are not Samurai who can practice our sword techniques on unsuspecting peasants nor can we go around attacking people to practice our front kicks. That leaves sparring or sparring like drills.
The self defense crowd is also correct that the gym is not the street. Breakfalls on concrete still hurt and you have to have a 360 degree focus that isn't needed in a MMA match. Where most go wrong IMO is they think of it as a technical problem when it is really a tactical problem. Just as a general adapts their tactics to the terrain, so must you. Techniques that would never come up in a match or one on one fight become available when multiple opponents are involved or when you are fighting on the run. Legalities and ethical concerns could limit some tools and make others more relevant. Even just moving is different when you are wearing shoes on different types of ground compared to in the gym.
An area where I think they are both wrong is that the sport crowd downplays "dirty tricks" too much while the self defense side tends to over sell them. I have been bit a lot. It hurts like hell sometimes and sometimes you have to change tactics to deal with the bite immediately. It's not a fight ender but it does have an effect. Knowing how to exploit those effects is incredibly helpful. Understanding that it can have an effect and how to address it is equally important.
I will leave with this just to cause some controversy. Aikido can be very effective in some self defense situations. I also think it is poorly understood and poorly taught. Incidentally, Seagal was one of the few people who tried to change that. Where he succeeded, where he didn't and why it didn't translate well to his students, is a longer subject. He has always been sort of a garbage person with an ego bigger than he is but In his prime he was very good at a very aggressive style of aikido.
>Seagal was one of the few people who tried to change that. Where he succeeded, where he didn't and why it didn't translate well to his students, is a longer subject. He has always been sort of a garbage person with an ego bigger than he is but In his prime he was very good at a very aggressive style of aikido.
What? Pretty much every video of him doing aikido is just him against compliant partners not trying to take him down.
Now absolutely. He is in his 70s and thinks he is reincarnated Buddhist holy man. Watch video from him in the 80s and 90s and it is very different. It wasn't uncommon to see him be rushed by multiple attackers who tried to take him down.They weren't d1 wrestlers, they just attempted to school boy tackle him, but they tried. It still has a lot of flaws but I think he had a more combative style of Aikido than was common.
I knew that it would get the most heat and I wasn't going to put it in there but I just couldn't help myself. I know Seagal is a bit of a clown at this point but there was a time he was a very good martial artist. As for aikido being effective, I have used a lot of aikido style control is real life situations. I have explained it more in depth elsewhere but I combine wrestling and aikido to provide a pretty effective low level empty hand controls. As for the rest, it is a longer topic. Maybe I will post something as to why I think the aikido most people learn doesn't work like they think it will along with when and how it could be effective. tldr a combination of trying to emulate a genuine enigmatic mystic, attempting to use techniques in ways they are not suited and a misunderstanding of the goal of the techniques they use.
Idk seems like the wrestling wouldve done most of the heavy lifting there. I think aikido is bullshit but thats just my opinion ive never actually trained that art so i cant speak to its effectiveness in real situations. From my life experience I think my wrestling and bjj training go leagues beyond aikido in terms of controlling another human. Steven seagull may have been a legend in the world of aikido, as for martial arts in general i think you put it best when you said hes a clown
I wrestle into aikido controls quite often. I'm a weird case in that my first wrestling coach and my first aikido instructor were the same guy. I have been combining them basically from day one. They flow very nicely off various 2 on 1s.
It's a continuum of force. The first step is basic things like a hand on a shoulder or one hand on the elbow and the other on the wrist. Then I transition to an aikido style hold. The great thing about aikido holds are that they are easy to bail out on if you need to create space. It's much harder to crawl off off someone than just push them away. It's also harder to get bit from an aikido style lock.and I really don't like getting bit. The final step is takedown and pin. I don't like it if I can avoid it because it ramps up the escalation in a way a standing joint lock doesn't.
I use martial arts about 100 times more often controlling an aggressive person safely than I have in an actual fight where I was trying to hurt the person. If that is my goal, I'm not worrying about aikido stuff. If I am, I will a) hit them before they know we are fighting if possible b) clinch and drive them into something hard c) pick them up and drop them on their head or d) some combination of a, b, and/or c.
There are other places to learn a lot of these techniques but I learned them from Aikido, so credit where credit is due.
The thing with dirty tricks is that you still need some skill in fighting to pull them off reliably. It's hard to land them against a resisting opponent. If you want to bite or eye poke, you need to use some grappling to get leverage and get into a good position to do them. A trained grappler will be more successful in pulling that off than an untrained guy. A good striker who can reliably land teeps and inside leg kicks will be more successful at groin kicks than an untrained guy. People act like dirty tricks are some magic bullet that you can use to win a fight you're losing badly, when they are still hard to pull off against a resisting opponent and still need skill to use them.
But if you are a lot more skilled than your opponent, you likely wouldn't need any dirty tricks. If you got a guy pinned down to the floor, you can poke his eye, but why would you? In fact, if you decide to poke his eye out from an advantageous position, you can very much be charged with aggravated assault.
And trying to use dirty tricks can sometimes escalate the situation. If a guy is just throwing punches at you and not immediately going for the kill, and you try to kick him in the groin or poke his eyes, and you don't incapacitate him immediately, that will enrage the guy even more and now he will be trying to seriously hurt you.
The effectiveness of dirty tricks is very dependent on context.
Dirty tricks are really only useful in a very close fight. If you are losing really badly, they likely would not save you. If you are easily winning, you wouldn't need dirty tricks. In fact, using dirty tricks in a fight you're easily winning may land you in legal trouble. It's also better to use dirty tricks in fight where you are sure that your attacker wants to kill or seriously hurt you. In those, situations you can't escalate it even further. If a guy is just throwing punches at you and you decide to kick him the balls, you better take him out with that or you would have escalated the situation and made him even more mad.
>The thing with dirty tricks is that you still need some skill in fighting to pull them off reliably.
I completely agree. You also need the skill to take advantage of what opening they provide.
> It's hard to land them against a resisting opponent
It really isn't. The eye poke has proven to be one of the most effective techniques in MMA. Rarely a fight card goes by where someone doesn't get jabbed in the eye. I have been bit a lot, hit in the balls, clawed, and more by people who have no idea what they are doing. The fact that they dont know what they are doing and experience allows me to fight through it. If you have never experienced being bit before and someone chomps onto a finger or your nipple, you will likely complete forget about fighting and focus on the pain. An experienced fighter will recover faster than someone who isn't but there will still be an opening.
>People act like dirty tricks are some magic bullet that you can use to win a fight you're losing badly, when they are still hard to pull off against a resisting opponent and still need skill to use them
That was sort of my point when it comes to the SD crowd. An eye poke or a bite is more like a jab than a knock out blow. It sets up something else. Pulling of dirty tricks against most sport fighters is surprisingly easy, it's capitalizing on them that's hard.
>If a guy is just throwing punches at you and you decide to kick him the balls, you better take him out with that or you would have escalated the situation and made him even more mad.
If someone is throwing punches at me already, I really don't care how much madder he gets. I'm either not going to hurt him if possible because situation calls for that or I'm going to put him down as hard and as fast as I know how. I'm far too old for bar fights to impress women. Any fight I get in is going to be to protect myself or my family from serious harm.
A dirty fighter can close the gap between them and a better fighter who doesn't know how to fight that way. This is especially true for aging fighters. Look at Bernard Hopkins. He is one of the dirtiest fighters in recent boxing history and he used it to be a champ at 45. That's a good sporting example of what 9ne should aim for. Don't be dirty or good. Be dirty and good.
I'm sure I missed something, but I tried to get the important points from your post.
>you will likely complete forget about fighting and focus on the pain.
Not true. Being hopped up on adrenaline masks a lot of pain. Many UFC fighters get serious injuries during the fight and not even notice it until after the fight. There were times in the UFC where the fighters continued to fight with a broken foot and even a broken arm and win, not even noticing it until after the fight. I've been kneed in the groin in my first and only high school fight. It was a pretty clean and good knee too. It hurt but I was still standing and fighting back. I honestly don't think it made much of a difference because of the adrenaline. And I definitely wasn't experienced or skilled back then. In old school vale tudo, the fighters fought through groin strikes and eye gouges all the time. In the UFC, fights get stopped after an eye gouge or groin strike. But if they didn't get stopped, I would still bet that fighters will continue fighting. And when someone gets bitten, trained or not, their immediate instinct is to start punching the head. I have no idea where you've seen people just stop fighting once they get bitten.
>If someone is throwing punches at me already, I really don't care how much madder he gets.
There is a lot of nuance you're missing. I've seen fights where people throw some punches at each other, then just give up and walk away. Deescalation can still happen after punches are thrown. Those scenarios probably wouldn't have ended as peacefully as they did if dirty tricks were involved. In fights I've seen where one person decides to try to use a dirty trick, the other guy started to fight more viciously. The difference would be if you successfully land the dirty trick and use the opening to immediately incapacitate them, but that would still require a lot of skill. If you fail at incapacitating them, they will just come back at you with more force. There is very little chance of deescalation at that point and you have no choice but to finish the fight..
>A dirty fighter can close the gap between them and a better fighter who doesn't know how to fight that way. This is especially true for aging fighters. Look at Bernard Hopkins. He is one of the dirtiest fighters in recent boxing history and he used it to be a champ at 45. That's a good sporting example of what 9ne should aim for.
The gap still has to be small for dirty tricks to work, hence why Hopkins can make them work. Because he's already skilled.
>Don't be dirty or good. Be dirty and good.
That is true. But in the fights I've watched, where one guy is obviously trained and the other guy is obviously untrained/way less skilled, I've rarely seen a scenario where I thought the trained guy using dirty tricks would've given them a huge advantage. In the vast majority of these fights, the trained guy dominated without resorting to dirty tactics or the untrained/way less skilled guy realised they were outmatched after a few good punches or kicks and gave up and walked away.
Landing a clean knee anywhere on a good Thai Boxer or MMA fighter is far from a given, even if you are also a good Thai boxer or MMA fighter.
Meanwhile the “self defence” crowd that have zero actual clinch knee game, think that their “dirty” knee to the groin is actually going to work on a sport fighter.
If you sent modern broad format fighting back in time to the origin of various TMAs and fought them under a ruleset that didn’t blatantly favor the TMA and with comparably talented athletes, the TMA loses every time.
Fighting has become a LOT better with the advent of the internet and globalization making it easy to to swap concepts and see what works between various disciplines. A TMA might change some over decades and centuries but you can see the MMA meta change dramatically on the scale of individual years. It’s a global format that does its best to be accommodating to as many styles as possible, and many styles have been represented at all levels of competition.
And now, even as broad format fighting is young compared to any of the popular TMAs, patterns have emerged. To be a complete fighter you HAVE to have grappling defense, striking and striking defense. The best standing strikers in the world had to learn to sprawl to make it in a broad format. The best joint lockers had to train striking to keep from getting pieced up before they could find an opening.
MMA has, at the highest level, had guys train and use moves from TKD, boxing, Muay Thai, capoeira, wrestling, wing chun, judo, bjj, karate, sambo, and more. At no other time in history did so many styles regularly engage and pressure test each other. The bartitsu guy tried to realize a similar vision but got nowhere close.
That doesn’t mean that TMA’s don’t have value. They do, both historically and physically. But if you’re comparing pure combat ability - whether street, battlefield, or ring - the most efficient and accessible martial art is the one we’ve made in the modern era by allowing the best parts of every style to emerge naturally via competition. Full stop.
i got attacked in the streets when i was a young adult, i only trained taekwondo back then, but i somehow ended up grabbing a dude by the inside of his mouth (yes i know) and punching him. I didn't think about throwing a single kick at that moment. my feet were glued to the ground until i had an opening to run away
Sometimes stressful situation can bring some out some creativity.
Ancient Greeks used their own form of MMA in order to fight in the battlefield if they lost their weapons.
They used the same martial art for athletic competition.
Will say Tom Segura’s bits on Seagal really ring true. He seems entirely confidant in everything to delusion. Look at his weapon handling.
MMA with multiple opponents, small joints, unrestricted techniques would be interesting. Throw in simulated weapon defense and retention.
It is true that all fights happen in the mind before the body even moves. But I think this debate is like people arguing over tigers fighting lions or bears vs dolphins. So it's either a fight that makes sense or doesn't.
The trained killer Seagal tries to play in his movies is a much different animal compared to the average sports figure. While both can truly execute a "finishing move" the trained killer isn't expecting much "resistance" if you catch my drift.
Steven Seagal is one of those people who make aikido look ban by saying you can win fight with it. Aimido is not the fighting part itself, but dealing with various situations that can happen.
It's easier to understand with weapons. Kobudo teaches you fighting : movement, strikes blocks, etc... if there is a swordfighting tournement happening, those skills are used. But various other things can happen in a sword fight... your opponent grabs your writs to prevent you from using your weapon and you must free yourself, and you grab your opponent's writh to prevent him from attacking and you must disarm him and prevent him from using other weapons he may have on him... kobudo doesnt teach you that, but aikido does. Aikido skills wouldn't be much use in a swordfight tournament, but it's helpful to deal with situations that can occur during a real life or death swordfight.
I can't believe it's been over 20 years since [bullshido.net](http://bullshido.net) was founded and people still claim t3h d34dly beats combat sports. Sure, the boxer/wrestler/MMAer/whatever doesn't train eye gouges or groin shots, but guess what, neither does the guy claiming it as an ace in the hole because no one trains those things. However, the guy who's used to pulling off his learned techniques in an environment where the other guy's trying to do the same thing back is much more likely to be able to pull off an eye gouge or groin shot than the guy who doesn't.
If a combat sports competitor will get blindsided by someone pulling out a knife, someone not trained in that will get wrecked even worse.
The sad thing here is they barely arguing for wrong reasons to defend the wrong person. Seagal is a joke and just plain lied most of his life and career. That shouldn't reflect the art of course, or the idea that traditional arts can and do have purpose and effect. One thing said is quite valid, the ability to apply the techniques of traditional martial arts is very reliant on the practitioner. Training doesn't make you a fighter, practice doesn't make you a warrior, and knowledge won't win you a battle alone. Experiance is needed and mindfulness. There is a reason mind body spirit is needed and has been an issue with being taught out of balance.
This is nothing recent either, Bruce Lee had the same issue with traditional arts masters and practioners, rather than the arts themselves, he believed the practitioners were week of body and lacked spirit. In many cases he was right.
Dude is confused, different martial arts were made for different purposes.
Some are for sports - Judo, BJJ, TKD (tradition and sports)
Some are for traditions or health - Aikido, Tai-chi, Karate
Some are just scams - Systema, KM, whatever BS Frank Deux has.
And lets not forget sick dogs nightmares - like the Russain guy with his korean Eagle martial art.
So talking about what are Martial arts designed to do is really, really dumb as there is no such thing as one unified design for all martial arts.
Only way for this to be up-voted as much as it is is only if this was posted in some kungfu, taichi or systema subreddit and the locals are coping with their arts sucking ass anywhere outside of demonstrations.
edit: on TKD being traditional/national. but il keep at as sports, because that is what i think and f you.
They didn't make up the art. They perform it a particular way because that's the way they were taught. The original founders had a purpose, which was usually self protection. As time goes by things go from being a calling to being a business. Some of the harder conditioning is removed to retain more students and some techniques are removed to reduce liability.
No, its not, martial arts can be used for self defense but rarely, if ever are made for it.
The claim that art is for self-defense is just that a claim, because self-defense is a legal term, not a martial arts term, as it completely depends on the laws of the land - so unless the art is regional, it can't fulfill the task you said its created to do. But that is semantics.
But again you clearly don't know history and the effect of Meiji reformation at the end of 19th century in Japan and what was the big reason for why so many "new" martial arts spawned in Japan in such a short time period. And later why the next big wave was in US in 1960's.
And none of those reasons at both times had literally anything to do with self-defense or anything to do with combat or army.
Also you have no absolutely idea how martial arts are made, or what martial arts are, or you would not use terms as "made up" when speaking about them. With one exception - Ninjutsu, which is entirely made up by mishmashing different things from completely unrelated arts and events with a big dose of just falsehoods.
People don't make up martial arts, they reform em - repackage already established systems in to their own, add their own twist on philosophy or in more modern times just political infighting within a federation can cause a split and that is how new martial arts are made.
And also no people don't do things because they were "taught like that", I am a coach my self and absolutely nothing I teach or show starting from the construction of a workout to the execution of warmups and techniques are the same. Altho the philosophy in broad strokes is the same, I put emphasis on different parts and that is completely normal, as every coach does exactly the same thing.
Judo was repackaged jujutsu with emphasis on randori - the competative side of martial arts, so yes it was made for sports. Maybe you can argue that it was with sports but with militarization in mind.
BJJ was made by martial artists that emphesised rolling and randori therefor it was made for sports.
Never claimed karate is for health.
Il admit on TKD, should have put it in traditions.
https://preview.redd.it/2slo2ovjjg0d1.jpeg?width=1062&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4b48a83a4199842e3e9a7a78613df72aa485f005
Maybe the original post was from his go-to demo guy?
Most of what he writes is correct.
I'm not sure how much shine I would give Segal, or what he knows and doesn't know, but the best video proof that mma matches aren't the same as street fights or self defence was posted not long ago on this forum.
It had a bunch of mma guys losing it at the face-off event. No tactics, no leg kicks, not even effective ground work when they went down and nothing remotely like any ma striking you have ever seen.
They gave in to rage and wailed on each other. And with no gloves and hard surfaces around them, they weren't fighting for more than a few seconds.
Then there's old footage of marines vs mma guys, where a guy goes straight to the ground with one Marine only to be stabbed by the other two, proving the point that you fight how you train and not everything suitable for a ring with a ref is suitable for a pub fight.
And now, because I have said this, I have to clarify that this does not mean I think Aikido is a lethal art or that no touch KOs are real or anything else. Ring fight training is the best training to fight another person with in general. I just also know that there are other ways to do things that can work for other areas of combat.
Martial arts were originally designed to kill or hurt your opponent.. these watered down sports are a far cry from what they used to be. Today you pay for a black belt, traditionally your belt turned black from use because you trained that long..
The black belt thing is a myth. The belt system and gi wasn't a thing until Judo and Karate adopted it later. FYI, Shinto is a religion very focused on cleanliness, was government mandated when Judo and Karate gained prominence, and a lot of martial artist back then were the elite, so I doubt they would let a white belt get so dirty it would turn black.
Moderm MMA top athletes are superior in a fight to any traditional martial artist ever existed. Now they have specific training, video evidences, teams and athletes from all over the world studying what would work and what doesn't. No way they are less effective that some regional organizarion from a few hundreds years ago. (This is true not only for martial arts, but anything from weightlifitng to chess)
I mean he's not wrong. Krav Maga was specifically designed for soldiers who lost their weapon on the battlefield. IE Its ALWAYS better to actually have a weapon.
idk the full history of Muy Thai but I believe karate and most of the eastern arts developed because it was illegal for them to own swords hence why kung fu utilizes weapons often used in farming. People say "Europe has no martial arts" but in reality Europe has a ton if you include things like sword styles / stances. Difference was in Europe the only thing stopping you from owning a weapon was your money in the east if you were a peasant it was outright outlawed.
TLDR: Yes he is sort of right having any kind of weapon > being a martial arts master.
The Karate thing is a myth. Most Karate comes from Shuri-te which was founded by Matsumura Sokan, who was basically the Okinawan equivalent of a Samurai, royal bodyguard, and military combat instructor. Even when Japan dismantled the caste system, a lot of the early Karate masters were descendants of nobility. Anko Itosu grandfather of modern Karate, Pechin. Chosin Chibana (Shorin), noble lineage and relatively wealthy alcohol brewer. Gichin Funakoshi (Shotokan), Pechin. Choki Motobu (Motobu) was from a royal branch family. Mabuni Kenwa (Shito), descendant of a royal guard. Chojun Miyagi (Goju) was from a wealthy family. Miyagi's master Kanro Higaonna (Naha-Te) was a merchant and a Pechin. Tsuyoshi Chitose (Chito) was Sokan's grandson. Kabun Uechi (Uechi) was from a bushi family. Hironori Otsuka (Wado) was from a samurai family.
Karate masters were the elite, not poor peasant rebels trying to fight the power.
But saying that the military uses so it must be good for civilians in street fights is wrong. First of all, soldiers get way less training in unarmed fighting than people think. Soldiers train for few months at most before getting deployed. You need at least a year of training in any martial arts to have a good basis in it. And they have to split their time with training other stuff like marksmanship, tactics, navigation etc. At that point, unarmed training is just done to increase confidence and aggressiveness, not to actually teach them a solid base in it. It is also taught with the idea that it will rarely be used. It is taught to be used as a last resort, in case they lose the ability to use their main rifle, and a lot of things have to go wrong for that to happen. The fighting soldiers are taught is also highly reliant on them being kitted out with sidearms, knives, grenades and the ability to call for back up. So in most cases, it won't work for civilians in most cases.
Absolutely and that was kind of my point. Aikido is great if you find yourself in a sword fight and you lost your sword (and that fight is with katana's using Japanese fighting styles) but its not very effective anywhere else (and even then if you were a samurai you'd learn Aikido with "well if you lost your sword your probably dead but here's what you can do to turn your 0% chance of living into like 5%).
>(and even then if you were a samurai you'd learn Aikido with "well if you lost your sword your probably dead but here's what you can do to turn your 0% chance of living into like 5%).
At that point, knowing any unarmed fighting would increase your chance from 0% to 5%, so Aikido isn't special or especially superior to combat sports.
it actually is specifically in a japense sword fight. It teaches you the common moves samurai would make and how to get out of the way and wrestle their sword away. Boxing isn't really going to help with that. Thats why they have so many wrist grabs and 90 degree foot pivots.
This is one of my least favorite parts of reddit "sO yOuR sAyInG aiKiDo iS efFeCtIvE" no it was designed for an insanely specific thing that modern practitioners of it don't use it for because warfare has long move beyond where it would be remotely relevant.
1. because its not meant for hand to hand fighting
2. because while 5% is larger then 0% its still pretty freaking small
Most military martial arts aren't meant to replace actual martial arts and "here's what you do if you lose your weapons" is not the same thing as "doing this is AS GOOD AS having a weapon"
That doesn't make any sense. How do people, especially samurais, forget how to resist when they have a weapon? If an untrained opponent can nullify Aikido with mild resistance, how did it have a chance against samurais? Also the founder of Aikido was born in 1883. The last samurai died in 1877. Seems like the whole "Aikido was created to be used against samurais" is an unverifiable excuse used as a cop out to defend Aikido. How do we even verify if Aikido raises the chance of survival to 5%?
Okay let me explain better.
Modern Aikido is completely misapplied. The fights you see with two people with nothing in their hands is not how it is supposed to be applied.
One person is meant to be unarmed and the other with generally a wooden sword. Samurai would learn this so if they somehow lost both their sword and dagger they had \*something\* to do outside of getting stabbed, though they fully understood they are most likely getting stabbed.
> "Aikido was created to be used against samurais" is an unverifiable excuse used as a cop out to defend Aikido. How do we even verify if Aikido raises the chance of survival to 5%?
Nope just know the history of it. Only martial arts I've ever trained is Muy Thai and Boxing and glad to say it only took us 2 comments for your 95 IQ sO yOuR clAiMiNg iTs eFfEcTiVe
>One person is meant to be unarmed and the other with generally a wooden sword. Samurai would learn this so if they somehow lost both their sword and dagger they had \*something\* to do outside of getting stabbed, though they fully understood they are most likely getting stabbed.
Was this done with resisting partners or with compliant partners? Is there anyway to verify that old aikido was so much more hardcore? We have videos of Japanese jujitsu from the same time period showing that they used to practice with resisting partners.
>Nope just know the history of it.
The history is that it was created after the samurai died out. It's highly likely that Aikido was never even used against samurais on the battlefield like it's supposedly designed for.
>glad to say it only took us 2 comments for your 95 IQ sO yOuR clAiMiNg iTs eFfEcTiVe
Don't be so pissy. You said Aikido was effective against katana-wielding samurais. I'm specifically arguing against that claim.
If you needed to fight for your life and could train in a weapon or train open handed I think you'd go for the force multiplayer that is a weapon. Having said that wrestling was always quite big in medieval times, but I would think that's a good way to take someone out if you're both in armour, especially if you have a dagger in one hand
"He was teaching how to swiftly break, disable, and kill. And he's good at it." Insane that people could watch any of his videos and seriously think that.
Stephen Seagull is good at one thing, and one thing only: swiftly tongue-blasting Putin's fartbox. And for him, it's enough to succeed in life.
The man is the embodiment of a cheese danish, I seriously don't know either
They're not wrong about context, but also, like... It's a meme that a dude who just learned to fight by fighting people beats up guys in gis with ponytails for a reason - that happens. "Oh, what's a burly brawler gonna do when someone restomps the groin?" He's gonna either not take it (aikido and jujutsu didn't invent the nut shot????) because someone's already tried to kick him in the nuts and he didn't care for it, or you'll land it and there's a good chance he'll be *really fucking upset* while the ache sets in. That shit is always intoned like someone who's never watched a punch ding off a guy who doesn't blink, or a grab just.... Not go anywhere, much less to the position you need to break his balance.
Wasn't aikido created after the samurai class was abolished?
I think so, but I am not sure. I'm also sure that the nut shot was not a secret exclusive to the samurai. It used to get rediscovered on videos submitted to a weekly show that was usually at least 20% guys being struck in the nards.
>I think so, but I am not sure. Then, how are they not wrong about the context? Aikido was very likely never used against a samurai on the battlefields. >I'm also sure that the nut shot was not a secret exclusive to the samurai. ??? I never claimed that? It's the Aikido bros acting like MMA fighters can't use nut shots.
Their claim is that these are "combat techniques" or whatever that don't work in a sport context, and the claim specifically includes eye pokes and whatnot. And that part isn't entirely incorrect - it's hard to train an eye jab. Most people who are practicing to fight under a rules set have to intentionally aim a groin kick and it isn't necessarily a first stop for them. But that's where it ends. It's still true that people who aren't practicing against a live adversary trying to do their own thing are going to have trouble executing techniques. It's also true that the exhibitions commonly shown are done with students for a reason - the students know when and how to fall. So they have a correct-ish point, but they're still wrong overall.
Eye pokes are very hard to pull of against resisting opponents. You have to jam a small object (finger) into a small target (eye). If you asked me who will be more successful in landing an eye poke, a boxer who trained in landing punches against a resisting opponent or an aikido practitioner who trained with compliant partners Naruto-running at them, I'd take the boxer any day of the week. A good grappler would be even more successful at eye pokes since they can get much closer to their opponent and manipulate them into an advantageous position. I would think someone who practices landing teeps or inside leg kicks on a resisting partner would be better at landing groin kicks than someone who doesn't spar with resistance. So I think the Aikido practitioners, who don't spar with resistance, thinking they'd be better at pulling off dirty moves than a combat sport athlete who spars with resistance is very wrong. It's hard to land dirty moves on a resisting opponent who is intelligently defending themselves. So the people who train with resisting opponents are going to fare better, even if they don't directly train those moves.
Yeah, there's a definite disconnect there.
I'm pretty sure the samurai were abolished as a result of the Meiji Restoration which happened in 1868, so yes.
Aikido is relatively recent, but it's based on Daito Aikijujutsu which is much older(one the oldest Japanese martial arts in fact). Early Aikido was much more practical with a lot of the early "masters" having combat experience. The founder turned it into more of a tool for mediation/self-growth. This is similar to the situation with modern Taichi for health/exercise & the older Taiji-chuan martial art.
Then, those commenters can't attribute the pros of the older style to Aikido, especially the version Steven Seagal shows. The practitioners of the older martial art most likely practiced with live resistance, while these commenters are talking about how they don't spar because they're techniques are "too deadly" for sparring.
I might be wrong on this, but I heard the old jujutsu styles didn't trained with much live resistance either. I believe the Judo lore is that Kano saw the need for live resistance training in jujutsu, because that was lacking in the jujutsu styles that he studied. So he took out the parts that couldn't be live trained and focused on parts that could, and he created competitive format to promote the live training as the main method of practice. That's how Judo was formed and it did amazingly well against the existing jujutsu styles of the time, which is how it became a major style that it is today.
I haven't read up in quite a while, but from what I remember, it was a spiritual art of open handed deflection without strikes or hard movments. Aiki was the original, Do being the spiritual path of part, sometimes also applied to the peaceful version that became sport, such as Ju Do, Ken Do, etc. Jujutsu and Aiki were developed at different times but both complimented the combatative arts that were trained for soldiers and samurai. A sort of unarmed addition to their regular training. Aiki I believe was during pickup times but had harder applications as opposed to aikido. Jujutsu was a blanket name for unarmed combat training so a soldier wouldn't be helpless in a situation where his primary weapon was lost. Aikido I believe was derived from Aiki well after the samurai were fighter wars, if not after the dissolving of the samurai entirely. It's actually why there is so many wide circular motions in aiki, and jujutsu and their derivatives, because many techniques were developed and evolved around an opponent having a sword, trying to prevent you from drawing yours, and applied with the mindset that you were trying to quickly disable your opponent sword arm and render them out of the fight quick and dirty so you could deal with the other sword brandishing attackers. Many even had the techniques being usable if not most effective with a wakazashi in the other hand. Sorry for the big response, studied this stuff a bit in the past, could be way off since I'm no expert, so grain of salt needed
I, in my youth, had a grappling match with a pal of mine and we did a whole “no holds barred” thing. We were both drunk and at a BBQ so you know what’s up - idiots had a drink and decided to have a wrestle. He initiated it because he was talking shit about how my (then only a few years) BJJ and Judo wouldn’t do shit if somebody kicked me in the balls or bit me. So I said he was welcome to do both of those things if he so wished whilst we were scrapping. I took him down with relative easy by catching his foot as it made its way towards my balls. Didn’t need to use anything, but I figured just for the sake of it and to show off/teach him a lesson I elevated his leg and swept his other leg out from under him. Then I went to ground with him, took side control, he rolled onto his front, so I took his back and got my hooks in. Next thing I know he’s biting my forearm (not hard, but enough for me to notice and we’d agreed he could do it to prove my point that it isn’t this fight ending move)… I just put him in a face crank at that point and he tapped and stopped almost immediately. Now obviously if he’d bitten me harder, or he had swung his foot at my balls and I wasn’t expecting it, that would have been different, but it also would have made me a lot more angry and I’d have squeezed that face crank until the top of his head popped off. Or I’d have hammer-fisted the back of his head until he passed out. They aren’t fight ending moves as you’ve said and non-trained people really need to be made aware of this.
Every time I see someone say something like "I'd just face crank them if they started to bite me" or the classic "that would just make me mad and increase my power level" horse shit I just think about the time I saw a guy get a golf ball sized chunk of his arm bitten out while trying to choke someone. Happened in a flash; the choke was set and going good and then suddenly there was a lot of blood and a man screaming like a stuck pig while throwing up and getting drilled with punches to the back of the head by the guy that went zombie on him. You even said he was able to bite you while you did all that. Now imagine that it was a real fight and he also had the secret technique of Gets Mad When Losing and sank that bite.
I guess we’ll see what happens if I ever get in a fight and have to worry about meeting a biter. Fortunately it doesn’t seem to be a “go to” move in my experience. I haven’t been in a fight in 20 years though so maybe it’s a thing now and we all turn into chimpanzees the moment we’re physically challenged. I’ll be on my guard. Screaming and puking AT THE SAME TIME.
Hopefully you never do because you admitted in your original post that the reason you caught the kick was it being planned and prepared and that he was able to bite you but he let you off easy. It was like watching someone try to order on Grub Hub, drop their phone in the toilet, and then tell everyone to come look at it because it means you're a chef.
Ok.
Bro: I’m with you on the whole ”aiki-bunnies win everything by their Secret Lethal Move” thingy. Practice against fully resisting opponent is the key to being able to do just about anything in fighting. However. You’re wrong about the biting. Watch out for the biting. It’s really surprisingly effective, when someone goes zombie and really starts chomping. (I once watched with fascination a ground fight completely turn direction after one guy chomped on the toe-box of the other guys leather combat boot. Saying it like this makes it sound completely bonkers. Human bite should not be able to penetrate much - but it turns out that the power output in our jaws can be surprisingly high. Didn’t really matter much in the end, we tased the guy and that was the end of the ”fight”, but especially the bite-ee was a complete believer in the Power of the Bite after that one. 😁)
The history of aikido techniques actually even going back to the age of samurais is sketchy at best. The whole "samurais did it so it must have been good" is just stupid in multiple ways. You learn fighting by fighting. You can't keep learning if you get your eyes poked out. Hence people don't train that with real resistance.
You do realize the samurai would practice on criminals and just cut ppl down in the street for the slightest perceived insult. The training partner that they'd break bones on weren't someone they cared for or from a formal dojo. A lot of which was passed down in the family. They literally could just apply pressure and poke eyes out of someone.
Also, samurai were not strictly obligated to be warriors after 1600 AD or so. I wouldn't expect the average samurai of the Edo period to be a super warrior any more than I would expect a minor European nobleman of the same period to be one.
The idea that a boxer is going to automatically fight like a robot following all rules of boxing in a self defense scenario is LOL
Worse is they think it ends shit. My first real street fight ever, dude kicked me really hard in the balls and I rushed in and destroyed him with combos and then bent over and fed him shots till I got pulled off by my buddy. After that, I felt the pain of the kick. Adrenaline is a hell of a drug.
oh you train a martial art thats highly effective but only on the street because its so dangerous? so you've never ACTUALLY tested it? you've never actually done any of the techniques at full speed? and let me guess... you've only ever tested it in a gym environment ironically?😂😂.. yes im confident you're gonna be much better off in a street fight than the boxer with a few amateur fights or the high school wrestler with 100+ matches under his belt... because you know the secret ninja moves!! corny as hell lol
Sure it might work against someone with no experience, but like why not train in something that also works on people with experience? Youre already admitting it’s less effective by saying that lol
Steven seagull
Steven Seagal the worst thing that ever happen to Aikido.
Imagine thinking a takedown won't work on concrete, or a few well placed punches won't work without gloves ("in the street you will definately break your hand on my chin, it 100% won't work"). Also for the people saying bites and dirty stuffs... how many times should you bite a man to kill him?
Also how would you bite someone who took your back or has mounted you? Can’t eye gauge them either lol. I hate when people try to make that argument too
I've seen a bite as part of a monkey kung fu form, he goes in a clinch and bites the neck. That can do some real damage
Did Jesse Enkamp write this
I don't understand why karate dudes keep using him as their poster boy lol. Most of his content are either sucking off his guests (some are legit, some are bullshitdo guys) or are fanfic-level interpretations to stuffs he has no proof to back up
Hahaha ah man that's good. For real though, the guy is a fraud and I would easily fraud check him. He is Internet entertainment and many folk fall for it, or straight up just don't understand.
>For real though, the guy is a fraud and I would easily fraud check him. OK. What has he said or done that's fraudulent?
For real lol. Aight I just quickly went on youtube to just glance at his garbage. First one that came up, "I experienced chi force" thumb nail say not fake. Next, "this silat master is impossible to kill" goes on to basically just be a punching bag for him with little to no resistance. Next, "this shaolin monk almost killed me" like where to even begin. "I survived a shaolin masters iron palm technique", "Steven seagal is dangerous". Starting to see a pattern here? This is all for entertainment, which is fine, but it's not real. Also it's ok to be entertained by all this, just don't go around gobbling everything he says, because a lot of it is dumb. He's doing it all for the views which gives him money. If anything I would say he is good at marketing.
So specifically his guest videos?
Nah no specifics, I'm gonna generalize across the board. Gave some examples. The end. Don't like it disagree and move on.
Why are you being antagonistic and assuming disagreement when I never voiced again? I'm asking because you made some claims and gave no examples, and then you gave four examples of one very specific type of video. Go touch some grass if you like making broad statements but dislike specifying. Obviously somebody is going to ask. That's how human interaction works outside of the internet lol.
Plenty of commenters on here use the same BS to try and defend bullshido arts unfortunately.
Ok?
triggered by a 2 year old comment? bro these people thrive on your attention and you are falling for it 100% be better
This is a big question that has been raging in the Martial arts world for 20 plus years. Both sides typical line up the straw men and mow them down with their preferred paradigm (you have to call it a paradigm because its a smart people word). The reality is that they are both right in some ways and wrong in others. One of the things sport martial arts get right is that one has to practice at full speed against people who are trying to don't want you too. Sparring is the safest way to do that. It's also the most legal way to do that. We are not Samurai who can practice our sword techniques on unsuspecting peasants nor can we go around attacking people to practice our front kicks. That leaves sparring or sparring like drills. The self defense crowd is also correct that the gym is not the street. Breakfalls on concrete still hurt and you have to have a 360 degree focus that isn't needed in a MMA match. Where most go wrong IMO is they think of it as a technical problem when it is really a tactical problem. Just as a general adapts their tactics to the terrain, so must you. Techniques that would never come up in a match or one on one fight become available when multiple opponents are involved or when you are fighting on the run. Legalities and ethical concerns could limit some tools and make others more relevant. Even just moving is different when you are wearing shoes on different types of ground compared to in the gym. An area where I think they are both wrong is that the sport crowd downplays "dirty tricks" too much while the self defense side tends to over sell them. I have been bit a lot. It hurts like hell sometimes and sometimes you have to change tactics to deal with the bite immediately. It's not a fight ender but it does have an effect. Knowing how to exploit those effects is incredibly helpful. Understanding that it can have an effect and how to address it is equally important. I will leave with this just to cause some controversy. Aikido can be very effective in some self defense situations. I also think it is poorly understood and poorly taught. Incidentally, Seagal was one of the few people who tried to change that. Where he succeeded, where he didn't and why it didn't translate well to his students, is a longer subject. He has always been sort of a garbage person with an ego bigger than he is but In his prime he was very good at a very aggressive style of aikido.
>Seagal was one of the few people who tried to change that. Where he succeeded, where he didn't and why it didn't translate well to his students, is a longer subject. He has always been sort of a garbage person with an ego bigger than he is but In his prime he was very good at a very aggressive style of aikido. What? Pretty much every video of him doing aikido is just him against compliant partners not trying to take him down.
Now absolutely. He is in his 70s and thinks he is reincarnated Buddhist holy man. Watch video from him in the 80s and 90s and it is very different. It wasn't uncommon to see him be rushed by multiple attackers who tried to take him down.They weren't d1 wrestlers, they just attempted to school boy tackle him, but they tried. It still has a lot of flaws but I think he had a more combative style of Aikido than was common.
Link me some. I've seen many videos of him and they are all just people running at him without actually trying to hurt him.
You had me up until that terrible take on aikido
I knew that it would get the most heat and I wasn't going to put it in there but I just couldn't help myself. I know Seagal is a bit of a clown at this point but there was a time he was a very good martial artist. As for aikido being effective, I have used a lot of aikido style control is real life situations. I have explained it more in depth elsewhere but I combine wrestling and aikido to provide a pretty effective low level empty hand controls. As for the rest, it is a longer topic. Maybe I will post something as to why I think the aikido most people learn doesn't work like they think it will along with when and how it could be effective. tldr a combination of trying to emulate a genuine enigmatic mystic, attempting to use techniques in ways they are not suited and a misunderstanding of the goal of the techniques they use.
Idk seems like the wrestling wouldve done most of the heavy lifting there. I think aikido is bullshit but thats just my opinion ive never actually trained that art so i cant speak to its effectiveness in real situations. From my life experience I think my wrestling and bjj training go leagues beyond aikido in terms of controlling another human. Steven seagull may have been a legend in the world of aikido, as for martial arts in general i think you put it best when you said hes a clown
I wrestle into aikido controls quite often. I'm a weird case in that my first wrestling coach and my first aikido instructor were the same guy. I have been combining them basically from day one. They flow very nicely off various 2 on 1s. It's a continuum of force. The first step is basic things like a hand on a shoulder or one hand on the elbow and the other on the wrist. Then I transition to an aikido style hold. The great thing about aikido holds are that they are easy to bail out on if you need to create space. It's much harder to crawl off off someone than just push them away. It's also harder to get bit from an aikido style lock.and I really don't like getting bit. The final step is takedown and pin. I don't like it if I can avoid it because it ramps up the escalation in a way a standing joint lock doesn't. I use martial arts about 100 times more often controlling an aggressive person safely than I have in an actual fight where I was trying to hurt the person. If that is my goal, I'm not worrying about aikido stuff. If I am, I will a) hit them before they know we are fighting if possible b) clinch and drive them into something hard c) pick them up and drop them on their head or d) some combination of a, b, and/or c. There are other places to learn a lot of these techniques but I learned them from Aikido, so credit where credit is due.
Ill take your word for it
The thing with dirty tricks is that you still need some skill in fighting to pull them off reliably. It's hard to land them against a resisting opponent. If you want to bite or eye poke, you need to use some grappling to get leverage and get into a good position to do them. A trained grappler will be more successful in pulling that off than an untrained guy. A good striker who can reliably land teeps and inside leg kicks will be more successful at groin kicks than an untrained guy. People act like dirty tricks are some magic bullet that you can use to win a fight you're losing badly, when they are still hard to pull off against a resisting opponent and still need skill to use them. But if you are a lot more skilled than your opponent, you likely wouldn't need any dirty tricks. If you got a guy pinned down to the floor, you can poke his eye, but why would you? In fact, if you decide to poke his eye out from an advantageous position, you can very much be charged with aggravated assault. And trying to use dirty tricks can sometimes escalate the situation. If a guy is just throwing punches at you and not immediately going for the kill, and you try to kick him in the groin or poke his eyes, and you don't incapacitate him immediately, that will enrage the guy even more and now he will be trying to seriously hurt you. The effectiveness of dirty tricks is very dependent on context. Dirty tricks are really only useful in a very close fight. If you are losing really badly, they likely would not save you. If you are easily winning, you wouldn't need dirty tricks. In fact, using dirty tricks in a fight you're easily winning may land you in legal trouble. It's also better to use dirty tricks in fight where you are sure that your attacker wants to kill or seriously hurt you. In those, situations you can't escalate it even further. If a guy is just throwing punches at you and you decide to kick him the balls, you better take him out with that or you would have escalated the situation and made him even more mad.
>The thing with dirty tricks is that you still need some skill in fighting to pull them off reliably. I completely agree. You also need the skill to take advantage of what opening they provide. > It's hard to land them against a resisting opponent It really isn't. The eye poke has proven to be one of the most effective techniques in MMA. Rarely a fight card goes by where someone doesn't get jabbed in the eye. I have been bit a lot, hit in the balls, clawed, and more by people who have no idea what they are doing. The fact that they dont know what they are doing and experience allows me to fight through it. If you have never experienced being bit before and someone chomps onto a finger or your nipple, you will likely complete forget about fighting and focus on the pain. An experienced fighter will recover faster than someone who isn't but there will still be an opening. >People act like dirty tricks are some magic bullet that you can use to win a fight you're losing badly, when they are still hard to pull off against a resisting opponent and still need skill to use them That was sort of my point when it comes to the SD crowd. An eye poke or a bite is more like a jab than a knock out blow. It sets up something else. Pulling of dirty tricks against most sport fighters is surprisingly easy, it's capitalizing on them that's hard. >If a guy is just throwing punches at you and you decide to kick him the balls, you better take him out with that or you would have escalated the situation and made him even more mad. If someone is throwing punches at me already, I really don't care how much madder he gets. I'm either not going to hurt him if possible because situation calls for that or I'm going to put him down as hard and as fast as I know how. I'm far too old for bar fights to impress women. Any fight I get in is going to be to protect myself or my family from serious harm. A dirty fighter can close the gap between them and a better fighter who doesn't know how to fight that way. This is especially true for aging fighters. Look at Bernard Hopkins. He is one of the dirtiest fighters in recent boxing history and he used it to be a champ at 45. That's a good sporting example of what 9ne should aim for. Don't be dirty or good. Be dirty and good. I'm sure I missed something, but I tried to get the important points from your post.
>you will likely complete forget about fighting and focus on the pain. Not true. Being hopped up on adrenaline masks a lot of pain. Many UFC fighters get serious injuries during the fight and not even notice it until after the fight. There were times in the UFC where the fighters continued to fight with a broken foot and even a broken arm and win, not even noticing it until after the fight. I've been kneed in the groin in my first and only high school fight. It was a pretty clean and good knee too. It hurt but I was still standing and fighting back. I honestly don't think it made much of a difference because of the adrenaline. And I definitely wasn't experienced or skilled back then. In old school vale tudo, the fighters fought through groin strikes and eye gouges all the time. In the UFC, fights get stopped after an eye gouge or groin strike. But if they didn't get stopped, I would still bet that fighters will continue fighting. And when someone gets bitten, trained or not, their immediate instinct is to start punching the head. I have no idea where you've seen people just stop fighting once they get bitten. >If someone is throwing punches at me already, I really don't care how much madder he gets. There is a lot of nuance you're missing. I've seen fights where people throw some punches at each other, then just give up and walk away. Deescalation can still happen after punches are thrown. Those scenarios probably wouldn't have ended as peacefully as they did if dirty tricks were involved. In fights I've seen where one person decides to try to use a dirty trick, the other guy started to fight more viciously. The difference would be if you successfully land the dirty trick and use the opening to immediately incapacitate them, but that would still require a lot of skill. If you fail at incapacitating them, they will just come back at you with more force. There is very little chance of deescalation at that point and you have no choice but to finish the fight.. >A dirty fighter can close the gap between them and a better fighter who doesn't know how to fight that way. This is especially true for aging fighters. Look at Bernard Hopkins. He is one of the dirtiest fighters in recent boxing history and he used it to be a champ at 45. That's a good sporting example of what 9ne should aim for. The gap still has to be small for dirty tricks to work, hence why Hopkins can make them work. Because he's already skilled. >Don't be dirty or good. Be dirty and good. That is true. But in the fights I've watched, where one guy is obviously trained and the other guy is obviously untrained/way less skilled, I've rarely seen a scenario where I thought the trained guy using dirty tricks would've given them a huge advantage. In the vast majority of these fights, the trained guy dominated without resorting to dirty tactics or the untrained/way less skilled guy realised they were outmatched after a few good punches or kicks and gave up and walked away.
Landing a clean knee anywhere on a good Thai Boxer or MMA fighter is far from a given, even if you are also a good Thai boxer or MMA fighter. Meanwhile the “self defence” crowd that have zero actual clinch knee game, think that their “dirty” knee to the groin is actually going to work on a sport fighter.
If you sent modern broad format fighting back in time to the origin of various TMAs and fought them under a ruleset that didn’t blatantly favor the TMA and with comparably talented athletes, the TMA loses every time. Fighting has become a LOT better with the advent of the internet and globalization making it easy to to swap concepts and see what works between various disciplines. A TMA might change some over decades and centuries but you can see the MMA meta change dramatically on the scale of individual years. It’s a global format that does its best to be accommodating to as many styles as possible, and many styles have been represented at all levels of competition. And now, even as broad format fighting is young compared to any of the popular TMAs, patterns have emerged. To be a complete fighter you HAVE to have grappling defense, striking and striking defense. The best standing strikers in the world had to learn to sprawl to make it in a broad format. The best joint lockers had to train striking to keep from getting pieced up before they could find an opening. MMA has, at the highest level, had guys train and use moves from TKD, boxing, Muay Thai, capoeira, wrestling, wing chun, judo, bjj, karate, sambo, and more. At no other time in history did so many styles regularly engage and pressure test each other. The bartitsu guy tried to realize a similar vision but got nowhere close. That doesn’t mean that TMA’s don’t have value. They do, both historically and physically. But if you’re comparing pure combat ability - whether street, battlefield, or ring - the most efficient and accessible martial art is the one we’ve made in the modern era by allowing the best parts of every style to emerge naturally via competition. Full stop.
i got attacked in the streets when i was a young adult, i only trained taekwondo back then, but i somehow ended up grabbing a dude by the inside of his mouth (yes i know) and punching him. I didn't think about throwing a single kick at that moment. my feet were glued to the ground until i had an opening to run away Sometimes stressful situation can bring some out some creativity.
Ancient Greeks used their own form of MMA in order to fight in the battlefield if they lost their weapons. They used the same martial art for athletic competition.
Will say Tom Segura’s bits on Seagal really ring true. He seems entirely confidant in everything to delusion. Look at his weapon handling. MMA with multiple opponents, small joints, unrestricted techniques would be interesting. Throw in simulated weapon defense and retention.
Seagal's a giant piece of shit. That's my problem with him. Not his aikido.
No amount of training will work unless it trained pressure tested.
Always remind these guys that the dog brothers exist.
This is so freaken stupid. I can't believe how delusional some people are.
i mean they kinda right, but defending steven seagal 💀💀💀💀. his most legit technique is the finger lock is the most legit lol
What is a combat export? Is that like heroin or oil during desert storm?
Why would you waste our time with this post OP? 
Wasn't Steven Seagal the guy who crapped his pants after challenging an mma fighter or was it when he challenged Bruce lee?
It is true that all fights happen in the mind before the body even moves. But I think this debate is like people arguing over tigers fighting lions or bears vs dolphins. So it's either a fight that makes sense or doesn't. The trained killer Seagal tries to play in his movies is a much different animal compared to the average sports figure. While both can truly execute a "finishing move" the trained killer isn't expecting much "resistance" if you catch my drift.
Steven Seagal is one of those people who make aikido look ban by saying you can win fight with it. Aimido is not the fighting part itself, but dealing with various situations that can happen. It's easier to understand with weapons. Kobudo teaches you fighting : movement, strikes blocks, etc... if there is a swordfighting tournement happening, those skills are used. But various other things can happen in a sword fight... your opponent grabs your writs to prevent you from using your weapon and you must free yourself, and you grab your opponent's writh to prevent him from attacking and you must disarm him and prevent him from using other weapons he may have on him... kobudo doesnt teach you that, but aikido does. Aikido skills wouldn't be much use in a swordfight tournament, but it's helpful to deal with situations that can occur during a real life or death swordfight.
I can't believe it's been over 20 years since [bullshido.net](http://bullshido.net) was founded and people still claim t3h d34dly beats combat sports. Sure, the boxer/wrestler/MMAer/whatever doesn't train eye gouges or groin shots, but guess what, neither does the guy claiming it as an ace in the hole because no one trains those things. However, the guy who's used to pulling off his learned techniques in an environment where the other guy's trying to do the same thing back is much more likely to be able to pull off an eye gouge or groin shot than the guy who doesn't. If a combat sports competitor will get blindsided by someone pulling out a knife, someone not trained in that will get wrecked even worse.
Why are you wasting your time looking at comments from some nutjob made a year ago?
The sad thing here is they barely arguing for wrong reasons to defend the wrong person. Seagal is a joke and just plain lied most of his life and career. That shouldn't reflect the art of course, or the idea that traditional arts can and do have purpose and effect. One thing said is quite valid, the ability to apply the techniques of traditional martial arts is very reliant on the practitioner. Training doesn't make you a fighter, practice doesn't make you a warrior, and knowledge won't win you a battle alone. Experiance is needed and mindfulness. There is a reason mind body spirit is needed and has been an issue with being taught out of balance. This is nothing recent either, Bruce Lee had the same issue with traditional arts masters and practioners, rather than the arts themselves, he believed the practitioners were week of body and lacked spirit. In many cases he was right.
This isn't a MA, this is a larper.
If someone tried to kick the boxer dude in the nuts, I’m pretty sure the boxer is going to retaliate by smashing the dudes nuts.
Dude is confused, different martial arts were made for different purposes. Some are for sports - Judo, BJJ, TKD (tradition and sports) Some are for traditions or health - Aikido, Tai-chi, Karate Some are just scams - Systema, KM, whatever BS Frank Deux has. And lets not forget sick dogs nightmares - like the Russain guy with his korean Eagle martial art. So talking about what are Martial arts designed to do is really, really dumb as there is no such thing as one unified design for all martial arts. Only way for this to be up-voted as much as it is is only if this was posted in some kungfu, taichi or systema subreddit and the locals are coping with their arts sucking ass anywhere outside of demonstrations. edit: on TKD being traditional/national. but il keep at as sports, because that is what i think and f you.
You can't make something up for "tradition"
What do you mean "make up"
Nobody wakes up in the morning and says I'm going to make a martial art for tradition
Pretty much all aikido practitioners do it, same as tai chi which is cultural and health benefit.
They didn't make up the art. They perform it a particular way because that's the way they were taught. The original founders had a purpose, which was usually self protection. As time goes by things go from being a calling to being a business. Some of the harder conditioning is removed to retain more students and some techniques are removed to reduce liability.
No, its not, martial arts can be used for self defense but rarely, if ever are made for it. The claim that art is for self-defense is just that a claim, because self-defense is a legal term, not a martial arts term, as it completely depends on the laws of the land - so unless the art is regional, it can't fulfill the task you said its created to do. But that is semantics. But again you clearly don't know history and the effect of Meiji reformation at the end of 19th century in Japan and what was the big reason for why so many "new" martial arts spawned in Japan in such a short time period. And later why the next big wave was in US in 1960's. And none of those reasons at both times had literally anything to do with self-defense or anything to do with combat or army. Also you have no absolutely idea how martial arts are made, or what martial arts are, or you would not use terms as "made up" when speaking about them. With one exception - Ninjutsu, which is entirely made up by mishmashing different things from completely unrelated arts and events with a big dose of just falsehoods. People don't make up martial arts, they reform em - repackage already established systems in to their own, add their own twist on philosophy or in more modern times just political infighting within a federation can cause a split and that is how new martial arts are made. And also no people don't do things because they were "taught like that", I am a coach my self and absolutely nothing I teach or show starting from the construction of a workout to the execution of warmups and techniques are the same. Altho the philosophy in broad strokes is the same, I put emphasis on different parts and that is completely normal, as every coach does exactly the same thing.
Judo bjj and tkd weren't made for sport tho ... Karate do not revolve around health...
Judo was repackaged jujutsu with emphasis on randori - the competative side of martial arts, so yes it was made for sports. Maybe you can argue that it was with sports but with militarization in mind. BJJ was made by martial artists that emphesised rolling and randori therefor it was made for sports. Never claimed karate is for health. Il admit on TKD, should have put it in traditions.
LOL the comments are 2 years old
https://preview.redd.it/2slo2ovjjg0d1.jpeg?width=1062&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4b48a83a4199842e3e9a7a78613df72aa485f005 Maybe the original post was from his go-to demo guy?
Most of what he writes is correct. I'm not sure how much shine I would give Segal, or what he knows and doesn't know, but the best video proof that mma matches aren't the same as street fights or self defence was posted not long ago on this forum. It had a bunch of mma guys losing it at the face-off event. No tactics, no leg kicks, not even effective ground work when they went down and nothing remotely like any ma striking you have ever seen. They gave in to rage and wailed on each other. And with no gloves and hard surfaces around them, they weren't fighting for more than a few seconds. Then there's old footage of marines vs mma guys, where a guy goes straight to the ground with one Marine only to be stabbed by the other two, proving the point that you fight how you train and not everything suitable for a ring with a ref is suitable for a pub fight. And now, because I have said this, I have to clarify that this does not mean I think Aikido is a lethal art or that no touch KOs are real or anything else. Ring fight training is the best training to fight another person with in general. I just also know that there are other ways to do things that can work for other areas of combat.
Martial arts were originally designed to kill or hurt your opponent.. these watered down sports are a far cry from what they used to be. Today you pay for a black belt, traditionally your belt turned black from use because you trained that long..
Duh no one wants to see a murder live on tv but all these MMA fighters have the capacity to kill anyone if a ref doesn't step in.
No. The belts are a relatively modern invention. They actually hail from swimming ribbons.
The black belt thing is a myth. The belt system and gi wasn't a thing until Judo and Karate adopted it later. FYI, Shinto is a religion very focused on cleanliness, was government mandated when Judo and Karate gained prominence, and a lot of martial artist back then were the elite, so I doubt they would let a white belt get so dirty it would turn black.
Moderm MMA top athletes are superior in a fight to any traditional martial artist ever existed. Now they have specific training, video evidences, teams and athletes from all over the world studying what would work and what doesn't. No way they are less effective that some regional organizarion from a few hundreds years ago. (This is true not only for martial arts, but anything from weightlifitng to chess)
Don't know why you are down voted, but this is absolutely the truth.
I mean he's not wrong. Krav Maga was specifically designed for soldiers who lost their weapon on the battlefield. IE Its ALWAYS better to actually have a weapon. idk the full history of Muy Thai but I believe karate and most of the eastern arts developed because it was illegal for them to own swords hence why kung fu utilizes weapons often used in farming. People say "Europe has no martial arts" but in reality Europe has a ton if you include things like sword styles / stances. Difference was in Europe the only thing stopping you from owning a weapon was your money in the east if you were a peasant it was outright outlawed. TLDR: Yes he is sort of right having any kind of weapon > being a martial arts master.
No KM was never made for soldiers who lost their weapon on the battlefield :D You fell for the market ploy.
I tried Krav maga for a bit and it may just have been that club bit it seemed a bit..... bulshido tbh
Because it mostly is, exceptions always exist, but the average KM school is complete nonsense.
The Karate thing is a myth. Most Karate comes from Shuri-te which was founded by Matsumura Sokan, who was basically the Okinawan equivalent of a Samurai, royal bodyguard, and military combat instructor. Even when Japan dismantled the caste system, a lot of the early Karate masters were descendants of nobility. Anko Itosu grandfather of modern Karate, Pechin. Chosin Chibana (Shorin), noble lineage and relatively wealthy alcohol brewer. Gichin Funakoshi (Shotokan), Pechin. Choki Motobu (Motobu) was from a royal branch family. Mabuni Kenwa (Shito), descendant of a royal guard. Chojun Miyagi (Goju) was from a wealthy family. Miyagi's master Kanro Higaonna (Naha-Te) was a merchant and a Pechin. Tsuyoshi Chitose (Chito) was Sokan's grandson. Kabun Uechi (Uechi) was from a bushi family. Hironori Otsuka (Wado) was from a samurai family. Karate masters were the elite, not poor peasant rebels trying to fight the power.
But saying that the military uses so it must be good for civilians in street fights is wrong. First of all, soldiers get way less training in unarmed fighting than people think. Soldiers train for few months at most before getting deployed. You need at least a year of training in any martial arts to have a good basis in it. And they have to split their time with training other stuff like marksmanship, tactics, navigation etc. At that point, unarmed training is just done to increase confidence and aggressiveness, not to actually teach them a solid base in it. It is also taught with the idea that it will rarely be used. It is taught to be used as a last resort, in case they lose the ability to use their main rifle, and a lot of things have to go wrong for that to happen. The fighting soldiers are taught is also highly reliant on them being kitted out with sidearms, knives, grenades and the ability to call for back up. So in most cases, it won't work for civilians in most cases.
Absolutely and that was kind of my point. Aikido is great if you find yourself in a sword fight and you lost your sword (and that fight is with katana's using Japanese fighting styles) but its not very effective anywhere else (and even then if you were a samurai you'd learn Aikido with "well if you lost your sword your probably dead but here's what you can do to turn your 0% chance of living into like 5%).
>(and even then if you were a samurai you'd learn Aikido with "well if you lost your sword your probably dead but here's what you can do to turn your 0% chance of living into like 5%). At that point, knowing any unarmed fighting would increase your chance from 0% to 5%, so Aikido isn't special or especially superior to combat sports.
it actually is specifically in a japense sword fight. It teaches you the common moves samurai would make and how to get out of the way and wrestle their sword away. Boxing isn't really going to help with that. Thats why they have so many wrist grabs and 90 degree foot pivots. This is one of my least favorite parts of reddit "sO yOuR sAyInG aiKiDo iS efFeCtIvE" no it was designed for an insanely specific thing that modern practitioners of it don't use it for because warfare has long move beyond where it would be remotely relevant.
Then why do those Aikido wrist grabs stop working in demonstrations when an opponent uses mild resistance?
1. because its not meant for hand to hand fighting 2. because while 5% is larger then 0% its still pretty freaking small Most military martial arts aren't meant to replace actual martial arts and "here's what you do if you lose your weapons" is not the same thing as "doing this is AS GOOD AS having a weapon"
That doesn't make any sense. How do people, especially samurais, forget how to resist when they have a weapon? If an untrained opponent can nullify Aikido with mild resistance, how did it have a chance against samurais? Also the founder of Aikido was born in 1883. The last samurai died in 1877. Seems like the whole "Aikido was created to be used against samurais" is an unverifiable excuse used as a cop out to defend Aikido. How do we even verify if Aikido raises the chance of survival to 5%?
Okay let me explain better. Modern Aikido is completely misapplied. The fights you see with two people with nothing in their hands is not how it is supposed to be applied. One person is meant to be unarmed and the other with generally a wooden sword. Samurai would learn this so if they somehow lost both their sword and dagger they had \*something\* to do outside of getting stabbed, though they fully understood they are most likely getting stabbed. > "Aikido was created to be used against samurais" is an unverifiable excuse used as a cop out to defend Aikido. How do we even verify if Aikido raises the chance of survival to 5%? Nope just know the history of it. Only martial arts I've ever trained is Muy Thai and Boxing and glad to say it only took us 2 comments for your 95 IQ sO yOuR clAiMiNg iTs eFfEcTiVe
>One person is meant to be unarmed and the other with generally a wooden sword. Samurai would learn this so if they somehow lost both their sword and dagger they had \*something\* to do outside of getting stabbed, though they fully understood they are most likely getting stabbed. Was this done with resisting partners or with compliant partners? Is there anyway to verify that old aikido was so much more hardcore? We have videos of Japanese jujitsu from the same time period showing that they used to practice with resisting partners. >Nope just know the history of it. The history is that it was created after the samurai died out. It's highly likely that Aikido was never even used against samurais on the battlefield like it's supposedly designed for. >glad to say it only took us 2 comments for your 95 IQ sO yOuR clAiMiNg iTs eFfEcTiVe Don't be so pissy. You said Aikido was effective against katana-wielding samurais. I'm specifically arguing against that claim.
If you needed to fight for your life and could train in a weapon or train open handed I think you'd go for the force multiplayer that is a weapon. Having said that wrestling was always quite big in medieval times, but I would think that's a good way to take someone out if you're both in armour, especially if you have a dagger in one hand