Should I train BJJ or Aikido?

[Cameron]

I was definetly going back to BJJ tonight. I sat down and did some emptiness meditation(zazen) and something says do Aikido. But I also like BJJ. I would probably love to do both but timewise and financially need to just pick one and make it my martial path.

 

So, give me feedback!

Edited May 6, 2006 by Cameron

[thaddeus]

I was definetly going back to BJJ tonight. I sat down and did some emptiness meditation(zazen) and something says do Aikido. But I also like BJJ. I would probably love to do both but timewise and financially need to just pick one and make it my martial path.

 

So, give me feedback!

For the record, I know you know all this already--since you study both, I'm just throwing tidbits out as if we chatting over a beer.

Since you say 'martial path', I voted aikido. BJJ is alot of fun, excellent conditioning, and arguably a great lifestyle addition. It's not going to make you a complete fighter or martial artist. It's missing alot of elements. For example, going to the ground is often not desirable. Also the focus on going for locks and chokes is not always practical. The chinese have a saying 'do not start or end a fight with chinna'. As we pointed out in other threads, there is no weapon component which is important for body training. Mixed martial arts is probably different in that it does train the standing component and looks to borrow techniques that work in a variety of situations. But I think these 'technique based styles' miss the common unifying principles that give it the flavor of a martial art with some traditions and some history. Aikido, which is an abstraction of aikijutsu has the benefits of hundreds, if not thousands of years of proving. Same with Chen Style Taichi (which i'll probably never stop saying I love). With Aikido, you can train your dantian, your ki flow, and train fighting techniques that will work in real live situations that you will likely encounter. For example, the drunk family member or friend, a crazy guy on the subway, a mugger with a knife, etc. The technical aspects of throwing an uke and taking ukemi is very rewarding practice. You can certainly add alot of ideas of softness, chi/ki, breathing, center to BJJ, but it's not taught and will only come from you, whereas there are tons of aikidoists who work with these ideas and you can learn from.

Anyway, this could go on for hours...not sure if I hit the right points..but I'm stuck working today and gotta go check on something..

T

[Peregrino]

Here's a question for any aikido practitioners: Have any of you trained at an aikido school that actually emloyed sparring with more than just the wind-up, chamber, extend and freeze style-punches (as in traditional karate), or totally unpredictable (mock!) knife and/or stick attacks from someone knowledgeable in their use (e.g. a Kali stylist)? I ask because in my admittedly limited observation of aikido training I only see the unrealistic situation of defeding against attacks in which the attacker unrealistically "gifts" the defender with one of those telegraphically wound-up, arm frozen-upon-extension-type punches, and a friend who trained in Jeet Kune Do told me that he once sparred an aikido instructor and had no problem faking him out, getting through his guard, avoiding trapping techniques, etc, just by throwing simple, quick-recoil boxing jabs. After their session the aikido trainer said he had never trained agaist those kinds of punches before!

[thaddeus]

Here's a question for any aikido practitioners: Have any of you trained at an aikido school that actually emloyed sparring with more than just the wind-up, chamber, extend and freeze style-punches (as in traditional karate), or totally unpredictable (mock!) knife and/or stick attacks from someone knowledgeable in their use (e.g. a Kali stylist)? I ask because in my admittedly limited observation of aikido training I only see the unrealistic situation of defeding against attacks in which the attacker unrealistically "gifts" the defender with one of those telegraphically wound-up, arm frozen-upon-extension-type punches, and a friend who trained in Jeet Kune Do told me that he once sparred an aikido instructor and had no problem faking him out, getting through his guard, avoiding trapping techniques, etc, just by throwing simple, quick-recoil boxing jabs. After their session the aikido trainer said he had never trained agaist those kinds of punches before!

There's a lot of ways to answer this. In a class probably not. But I've definately seen the better aikidoists playing with boxers and kickboxers after class to improve their skills. If someone trains in aikido as a technique based art, then yeah, this is what would happen. But if it's approached as a principle based art then it's a matter of who is a better fighter, not who has the better art. Aikidoists are trained to move as if the opponent had a weapon that could cut them. On the other hand, some teachers are so caught up in the flow and artsy side that they completely forget the martial side and do stupid things that would get them killed. A good aikidoist is always positioning him/herself behind the opponent and constantly manipulating their weak angles in order to protect themselves. If an aikidoist starts to trade punches with a jeet kune do guy or stands around trying to dodge jabs, then he just doesn't understand. He also made the mistake of playing the other person's game. It's like saying the boxer couldn't defend against my kicks or i punched the crap out of that judo black belt. I think whenever you become a prisoner of your style, you can't work outside that those parameters. The basic ideas of listening and manipulating the opponent's 'ki' for lack of an all encompassing word meaning center, force, direction, balance, intention, etc. are in all principle based arts but particulary in good aikido. The style of aikido is to throw or immobolize and occasionally strike. So I'm kinda surprised the jeet kune do didn't find himself punching air and finding himself on his back..but whatever..

lol so in short, yeah, alot of schools do train realistically..

T

[Smile]

I was definetly going back to BJJ tonight. I sat down and did some emptiness meditation(zazen) and something says do Aikido. But I also like BJJ. I would probably love to do both but timewise and financially need to just pick one and make it my martial path.

 

So, give me feedback!

Go with Aikido or Aiki-Jitsu.

[thelerner]

My Aikido instructor was good friends w/ a amateur boxer. So we'd do more work w/ jabs and the like. It does change the spacing, timing and stance. The entering style is different, but the basic throw and philosophy was the same. Truthfully most of the free style Randori were done against opponents using bigger exagerated attacks that beg for throws. But there 3 or 4 four of them swigging and kicking full force, so it wasn't exactly a cake walk.

 

I did know some Aikidoist who moved onto to BJJ. More power to them. Its good to be well rounded and I admire BJJ. But Aikido can go way beyond 'just' martial arts. At its best there is a magic to it. One of the most talented Aikidoists I knew (who later joined a Llamas Kung Fu class and quickly rose to instructor level), said "Everything I do is Aikido". Her Aikido background influenced the way she moved and the way she saw. It was a lifetime source of strength.

 

Beyond the throws, pins and atemi, a good Aikido Dojo should be path oriented. Whereas a good BJJ should be no nonsense hard core, technique technique technique. Which is great, but can lead to injury, injury, injury. Realism can create real injuries. Expensive and no fun.

[Cameron]

Looks like BJJ is ahead! I'll give it another day and then starting back either one of these arts monday night!

 

No one who voted BJJ has anything to say?

[Peregrino]

Looks like BJJ is ahead! I'll give it another day and then starting back either one of these arts monday night!

 

No one who voted BJJ has anything to say?

 

I voted BJJ, but mainly judging by my own criteria, which might not be the same as yours: I want realistic and effective combat training--that's the bottom line for me. Of course, I do realize that no style is completely comprehensive and should be corrected by the jeet kune do principle. (As it turned out, my jeet kune do school in California began to incorporate BJJ techniques and drill them regularly sometime in the mid-90s).

 

For "the path" element, the cultivation of moving meditation, the constant focus on a principled life philosophy, aikido would most likely offer more, but I am content to seek that spiritual aspect via other practices (mindfulness meditation, the microcosmic orbit, and whatever else experience and investigation bring my way).

Edited May 7, 2006 by Peregrino

[Cameron]

BJJ it is!

 

I thank you for your feedback!

[Lozen]

I voted BJJ too, because you seem to love it so much. Plus you are doing Ken Cohen stuff, and I think it's best to keep spiritual practices distinct until you really become an expert at something.

 

Peregrino, where did you study JKD?

[Lozen]

<snip>

 

sorry, double post.

Edited May 7, 2006 by Lozen

[neimad]

i voted BJJ.

 

having trained aikido for about 5 years i can pretty convincingly say that unless you are prepared to dedicate at least 20 or more years to 'transcend' the techniques..... then it's a waste of time.

it wont teach you to be a better fighter, which i have now come to understand is what martial arts is about.

 

WAIT.

 

before i hear about the 'art' part of it and using it as a path....

 

the goal or martial arts is to make you a better fighter.

the implications of which set up a level of physical security (second step in maslows hierachy) and enable you to build off of this in your own personal spiritual path.

 

without the competitive/sparring aspects of martial arts, you are missing a huge key to becoming a successful fighter.

 

aikido is lovely in it's ideals..... but they are just that, ideals that may or may not be met in a lifetime of study. a lifetime.

 

about the only really great thing about aikido is the ukemi.

 

BJJ is still a technique based martial arts, but there is more levels of freedom in the free wrestling that takes place and the competitions (of which i advise you enter to truly progress).

 

for me i am not going to bother with any martial art except those that are entirely principle driven.

i study cheng hsin (www. chenghsin.com) and am going to get into RMAX flowfighting by looking at the DVD's and finding some people to 'play' with in the sense of an informal training group.

reading all the articles in the circularstrengthmag really gave me a lot of insight into how and what makes a martial art successful and efficient in a reasonable length of time for learning.

 

BJJ has it more than aikido does.

 

[thaddeus]

i voted BJJ.

 

having trained aikido for about 5 years i can pretty convincingly say that unless you are prepared to dedicate at least 20 or more years to 'transcend' the techniques..... then it's a waste of time.

it wont teach you to be a better fighter, which i have now come to understand is what martial arts is about.

 

WAIT.

 

before i hear about the 'art' part of it and using it as a path....

 

the goal or martial arts is to make you a better fighter.

the implications of which set up a level of physical security (second step in maslows hierachy) and enable you to build off of this in your own personal spiritual path.

 

without the competitive/sparring aspects of martial arts, you are missing a huge key to becoming a successful fighter.

 

aikido is lovely in it's ideals..... but they are just that, ideals that may or may not be met in a lifetime of study. a lifetime.

 

about the only really great thing about aikido is the ukemi.

 

BJJ is still a technique based martial arts, but there is more levels of freedom in the free wrestling that takes place and the competitions (of which i advise you enter to truly progress).

 

for me i am not going to bother with any martial art except those that are entirely principle driven.

i study cheng hsin (www. chenghsin.com) and am going to get into RMAX flowfighting by looking at the DVD's and finding some people to 'play' with in the sense of an informal training group.

reading all the articles in the circularstrengthmag really gave me a lot of insight into how and what makes a martial art successful and efficient in a reasonable length of time for learning.

 

BJJ has it more than aikido does.

 

Hi Neimand, interesting comments. I have Ralston's books, but I haven't studied with him personally. Do you feel it takes 20 years to master cheng shin before you can use it? Since you have the background in Aikido, what is fundamentally different about his stuff? At least from looking at the book, I saw no difference between what he does and standard aikido minus some of the taichi ideas he got from william chen.

To anyone really..

Freesparring aside, which aikido does have btw, what is it about aikido techniques that would take it 20 years to master over a BJJ technique? What would be an example of that?

For me it's interesting to read that people have this 'airy fairy' concept of aikido training--much like the general perception of taichi training.

T

[voice]

Is BJJ a form of sexual gong -- Blow Job Jitsu?

[sean]

what is it about aikido techniques that would take it 20 years to master over a BJJ technique? What would be an example of that?

I don't know shit about martial arts really except for having taken BJJ the last several months, and I think the thing about BJJ is that every class we do full resistance sparring where me and a partner are really truly trying to do whatever we can to submit the other person while avoiding submission and without resorting to strikes and a few common sense illegal moves (although we do MMA training with strikes some days). I think it was out of this practice that most of the techniques of BJJ were discovered and refined, and so the techniques portion of the class ends up being intimately relevant to the full resistance sparring from day one ... because I am always thinking to myself, "how will I apply this technique in an hour when I am trying to choke out Joe". I quickly see how moves apply, what works and doesn't work, and how to refine my own game in as close to a real situation as is capable of being simulated without significantly greater risk of injury. My understanding is that in many other martial arts, it's rare to have such a consistent, live, full-resistance testing ground to refine what does and doesn't work. Then in BJJ, even this is only the foundation ... if you want to get more serious you would start competing, where your opponent doesn't know you and there are 500 people watching, and you both get adrenaline dumps and both of you are a lot more willing to hurt each other more to win because you're not buddies and you aren't going to eat lunch together after class. And then of course from there, you add the other layer of complexity with going MMA and allowing strikes, etc. Did that answer your questions somehow?

 

 

Sean

[thaddeus]

Did that answer your questions somehow?

Sean

Yes, I see your point. I think Aikido and BJJ start out the same. You learn a move for a given situation. Even in BJJ, your partner is not resisting right off the bat, you still have to learn the move. Then you usually say 'hey joe start to resist a little'..so far aikido and bjj are the same. I think where they probably diverge is in the area of, like you said, competition where the 'uke' or partner not only is resisting but is intent on kicking your ass. But something to consider, at that point, the resistance isn't 'natural', it's a type of resistance you won't find in live situations. Other BJJ fighters resisting your technique are doing it at complicated and sophisticated levels. The only thing that can be done is to constantly train with very strong newbies. So it might not be so divergent from aikido.

I just remembered another thought that bolsters the bjj argument..when i was training heavily in bjj and judo i had this invincible feeling..not from having great abilities with techniques, but just that the training was so hard, i felt i could take punishment and give punishment--so i wasn't afraid of anyone no matter what size..as long as they didn't have a weapon. I don't think with Aikido you can get that level of hard training without getting really injured.

T

[Buddy]

Baguazhang, rolling around in the dirt is so....unseemly. And if he has a friend, lights out.

[Smile]

Is BJJ a form of sexual gong -- Blow Job Jitsu?

In Cam's case, yes.

[Smile]

Freesparring aside, which aikido does have btw, what is it about aikido techniques that would take it 20 years to master over a BJJ technique?

It should take about 1-2 years to learn the technique and and a couple more to be proficient in it. The good stuff about it is you will never forget it.

[neimad]

Hi Neimand, interesting comments. I have Ralston's books, but I haven't studied with him personally. Do you feel it takes 20 years to master cheng shin before you can use it? Since you have the background in Aikido, what is fundamentally different about his stuff? At least from looking at the book, I saw no difference between what he does and standard aikido minus some of the taichi ideas he got from william chen.

To anyone really..

Freesparring aside, which aikido does have btw, what is it about aikido techniques that would take it 20 years to master over a BJJ technique? What would be an example of that?

For me it's interesting to read that people have this 'airy fairy' concept of aikido training--much like the general perception of taichi training.

T

 

scott sonnon has many articles that outline exactly why this is this the case.... here is just one:

http://www.circularstrengthmag.com/29/sonnon8.html

 

aikido is a context, reaction, technique driven martial art.

 

it's not 20 years you need to master the technique.... it's 20 years you need to transcend technique and welcome flow.

why not just train flow??

 

techniques just don't work.

i spent 5 years studying aikido, the teacher was great, the techniques are great..... but it just doesn't work because it's impossible to apply a technique in a live situation. you have to repeat a technique thousands of times to 'wire' it and then you have only 'wired' it for that particular situation (i.e. overhand strike).

the training methodology is flawed.

 

it's not about it being "airy-fairy" as it can be incredibly hard, just ask anyone who has trained in japan.... it's just another technique based art and flawed in it's presentation. that's not to say an aikidoka cannot become an amazing fighter, but i would say it happens in spite of his training, rather than because of it due to the nature of the particular individual.

 

i stopped aikido before i even read anything about flowfighting because i became dissatisfied about the methodology and felt it led nowhere and i got bored because of the lack of increasing complexity and sophistication.

 

as to how cheng hsin is different.....

well cheng hsin is entirely principle based. we are viewing fighting as a relationship. cheng hsin is a way to study how to be effortless and have effortless relationships at all levels, fighting is just one of them.

we rarely ever train techniques and when we do it's more about using a particular mechanics to study a principle.

mostly we play games to explore the principles.

i view it more as an ontological pursuit than a martial arts, in that i am studying the nature of myself and how to be effortless.

 

there really is no comparison between the two, they are completely different things.

 

aikido could be amazing and effective, but the whole training methodology would need to be radically changed.... and then, is it still aikido??

[Lozen]

I have a friend who trained in aikido in Japan, I think it was, and they really did beat the hell out of each other.

 

It depends on where you go.

[neimad]

I have a friend who trained in aikido in Japan, I think it was, and they really did beat the hell out of each other.

 

It depends on where you go.

 

yup... several students from my dojo went to train in japan. they said the training was incredibly hard and rough.....

 

so what?

it's hardcore....

 

it doesn't detract from it's flawed training methodology though.

you'll just end up with more injuries and more traumas to your body that you'll eventually have to do something else to remove.

 

thats why i like cheng hsin, and also RMAX (gonna get into flowfighting as soon as i can, will buy the softwork DVD and form an informal training group) because it's not about being hardcore.

 

it's about becoming efficient and effective, and you don't need to have the heaven beaten out of you to get that! in actuality, doing so just makes it that much more difficult to become efficient and effective (effortless).

[thaddeus]

scott sonnon has many articles that outline exactly why this is this the case.... here is just one:

http://www.circularstrengthmag.com/29/sonnon8.html

 

aikido is a context, reaction, technique driven martial art.

 

it's not 20 years you need to master the technique.... it's 20 years you need to transcend technique and welcome flow.

why not just train flow??

 

ok. i see where you're coming from. completely agree with everything you say except the part about aikido being technique driven. That's where the disconnect is. I don't believe there is such a thing as transcending technique as per the article. Who has observed this after 20 years? It's a silly thing to say as it can't be proven, it's just an opinion. Any martial art that is technique based just won't work, but that's stating the obvious. There's a lot of bad aikido, just like alot of bad taiji and alot of bad judo and BJJ, etc. For example, whenever I see an 'applications' class for taiji, I shudder. I've even seen a video where someone does a throw and performs single whip after it where it didn't even make sense to do it, they were just trying to match the taiji movements with techniques. Completely missing the point. Anyway, if you think about what aikido is..which is blending with forces and manipulating weak points, then it can't by definition be a technique based art. Anyway, my two cents..

But you are definately on the right track with everything you say.

T

[SheepishLord]

Shieky,

 

Once again, the only reason you ask these questions is because you have no focus.

 

WHY are you studying a martial art???

 

Once you can answer this question from a position of truth there will be no issue.

 

If you want to fight in UFC, study BJJ.

 

If you want to be a bouncer, study Aikido.

 

WHAT do you want???

 

Do you enjoy contact with men?

Do you want to get in shape?

Do you dream of glory in the Octagon?

 

IF you are learning martial arts for real-world application, this shit is all useless. In sport competition such as UFC and PRIDE here are a list of things that are not allowed:

 

eye gouges

testicle attacks

wrist and finger attacks

face locks along with many catch wrestling techniques

ear attacks

bites

stomps (UFC) elbows (PRIDE)

Joint strikes

spinal strikes

 

You know why these things aren't allowed? Because they allow someone with no training to take out all of your heroes. Ends fights in a few seconds.

 

No $$$ can be made watching such fights.

 

So figure out what you really want in life and just go for it.

[neimad]

i agree that aikido shouldn't be a technique based martial arts..... and likely when originally taught, it wasn't.

 

that's been lost somehow so now all people train are techniques, when really what we want to be doing is using those techniques to understand mechanics and principles of movement..... i.e. blending of forces, etc.

 

unfortunately i have never seen it taught that way, there is always a technique and a compliant partner.

i have had ideas of trying to take up instructing it myself and using it as such.... to explore the mechanics of movement and how the 'technique' happens as a result of the movement, and not the other way around.

 

unless it's implicitly trained this way, only the really intelligent and creative students will truly 'get it' which is where i think transcending the technique comes from..... one finally 'gets it' after all those years of technique, in that there is no technique and only movement.

 

movement creates a technique, in that sense (as stated often in aikido) there is infinite techniques.

 

again it's not aikido that is flawed, it's the training methodology.

 

 

 

Shieky,

 

Once again, the only reason you ask these questions is because you have no focus.

 

WHY are you studying a martial art???

 

 

 

So figure out what you really want in life and just go for it.

 

plato, i like where you are coming from here.... again back to the 'goals'.

 

what is martial arts to you?

 

for me i want to train it for several reasons (and i'm just offering this as example):

1. movement based (partner version of personal movement practice, like a dance)

2. deepening relationships (it's just another type of relationship, one that if learnt to engage in effectively, carries over to life in many ways).

3. sense of self-security (second rung in maslows hierarchy).

4. creative exploration (the way i want to study MA is about creative exploration, and not about rote learning of techniques..... i have given up all rote learning since finishing uni, it has no place in the human experience. so it just becomes another venue to express my infinite creativity).

 

good enough for ya plato???