Boxing

[pjt]

theres' jerks and aggressive people even in the pacifist style of aikido.

.

The difference though is aikido does not teach or encourage aggression. The people who take something good and make it bad are doing that from their wickedness. They are not being taught it. However, when a particular style of a martial art directly teaches aggression as its purpose then it has a violent core.

 

[jasoncran]

The difference though is aikido does not teach or encourage aggression. The people who take something good and make it bad are doing that from their wickedness. They are not being taught it. However, when a particular style of a martial art directly teaches aggression as its purpose then it has a violent core.

uh, when you do aikido some techniques take a life.

all martial arts are from combat arts.

 

[jasoncran]

karate and the others can be done as both defensive and offensive depending on skill level.

the blocks aren't really blocks but strikes to the attackers limbs as he attacks.

its the guy with the skill that makes it good or bad.

keep in mind that over 100 yrs ago all martial arts where for the military only.

 

[old_tractor]

theres' jerks and aggressive people even in the pacifist style of aikido.

i know of two like that in my town. one i have told and the sensei has said go trian with jason in bjj.

old-tractor, i am a shodan in rokokai karate-do, a varation of shotokan, and that is really shuri-te. in essence what you are training in.

but i converted to mma stuff and will remain in that for a while.

Sounds very cool. I am intersted in MMA also. I sometimes think many martial arts began and continue to be a little rigid in their outlook. That's not to say I found my dojo to be so, but, still I am interested in how MMA distills various techiques from different arts into one focused whole.

 

[pjt]

uh, when you do aikido some techniques take a life.

.

But does aikido teach that technique for offensive purposes? Or for life and death situations only where this technique is used as a last resort to save an innocent life against a malicious person? If it`s taught purely for self defence and that is made clear in the training, then it is not violent, in my opinion. But if it`s taught with ambiguity where just the technique is taught and one understands this technique can kill but no one is told the responsibility they have in knowing this technique nor any clear indications are given that this is a technique used ONLY for extreme self defence situations, then that is dangerous and I would conclude either the belts need to stop before one reaches this point of training or the whole martial art of aikido is corrupt in its core if that is what it ultimately leads to. However, even though I have no experinece with aikido and have never looked at it more than on the surface, it has been explained to me that the core of aikido is purely self defense. I hope that is true. Of course, anyone can take the training and turn it into something bad. All good can be used for corrupt purposes so to answer if aikido is good or bad lies in its own teaching. If its goal is to take innocent people thinking they are entering a peaceful, self defense art, get them really deep into it and then show its ultimate goal of how to kill then that is very wicked. It`s a very cultish tactic. I `d prefer the martial art that shows upfront that it`s all about teaching a person to fight and to be cocky about it. At least the latter tells the truth from the start and people can go into it making the known, wicked choice. There`s no deception. Anyway, I hope aikido is not like that.

 

[jasoncran]

But does aikido teach that technique for offensive purposes? Or for life and death situations only where this technique is used as a last resort to save an innocent life against a malicious person? If it`s taught purely for self defence and that is made clear in the training, then it is not violent, in my opinion. But if it`s taught with ambiguity where just the technique is taught and one understands this technique can kill but no one is told the responsibility they have in knowing this technique nor any clear indications are given that this is a technique used ONLY for extreme self defence situations, then that is dangerous and I would conclude either the belts need to stop before one reaches this point of training or the whole martial art of aikido is corrupt in its core if that is what it ultimately leads to. However, even though I have no experinece with aikido and have never looked at it more than on the surface, it has been explained to me that the core of aikido is purely self defense. I hope that is true. Of course, anyone can take the training and turn it into something bad. All good can be used for corrupt purposes so to answer if aikido is good or bad lies in its own teaching. If its goal is to take innocent people thinking they are entering a peaceful, self defense art, get them really deep into it and then show its ultimate goal of how to kill then that is very wicked. It`s a very cultish tactic. I `d prefer the martial art that shows upfront that it`s all about teaching a person to fight and to be cocky about it. At least the latter tells the truth from the start and people can go into it making the known, wicked choice. There`s no deception. Anyway, I hope aikido is not like that.

you can used the deadly ones at will if you want too. its defensive but and its not taught to do this.

an example

for instance i can use shihonage to seriously maim someone if they just push me or i could use the joint lock called oshi taoshi.

even then i can still hurt the guy. it takes yrs to be that good. its not as simple to just softly lay someone down when they really try to blast you.

sometimes if you do the simple thing like shomenate the guy will land on his head and may die or be hospitalised.

its very defensive as you cant attack effectively with shomenate but you can seriously hurt someone when they attack.

i wasnt taught when and where to use the stuff in the last style of aikido i trained as they often went slow cause of injury. i know the when from my old sensei that was taught by a detective, and harped into me not to use it foolishly

 

[pjt]

you can used the deadly ones at will if you want too. its defensive but and its not taught to do this.

i wasnt taught when and where to use the stuff in the last style of aikido i trained as they often went slow cause of injury. i know the when from my old sensei that was taught by a detective, and harped into me not to use it foolishly

This is very concerning. Would you say then that the philosophy and design of aikido is to be purely self defense and anyone that teaches otherwise is not holding to the pure qualities of the art or would you say the philosophy and teaching of aikido is left to be determined and interpreted by the sensei? I ask because of personal interest. My son`s friends are asking him to join an aikido class with them. Neither of us have visited the class yet, but I was under the impression that aikido was one of the best forms as well as a nonaggressive form of martial arts which appealed to me as a mother, but now I must examine it more closely. Any thoughts?

 

[jasoncran]

This is very concerning. Would you say then that the philosophy and design of aikido is to be purely self defense and anyone that teaches otherwise is not holding to the pure qualities of the art or would you say the philosophy and teaching of aikido is left to be determined and interpreted by the sensei? I ask because of personal interest. My son`s friends are asking him to join an aikido class with them. Neither of us have visited the class yet, but I was under the impression that aikido was one of the best forms as well as a nonaggressive form of martial arts which appealed to me as a mother, but now I must examine it more closely. Any thoughts?

its a fight and one must have control. but in reality you also must realise that you may have to take a life.

the problem i have with aikido is that isnt realistic as it take 20 yrs to get it to work for you.it will make the timing and other footwork of the hard styles better.

if the instructor teaches it the to the true form it shouldnt be agressive.

watch a class and see for yourself.

keep in mind that i have 20 yrs in the arts and know when i could use it the wrong way and see the timing of where in any attack and my counter i could maim/kill the guy.

 

[pjt]

its a fight and one must have control. but in reality you also must realise that you may have to take a life.

the problem i have with aikido is that isnt realistic as it take 20 yrs to get it to work for you.it will make the timing and other footwork of the hard styles better.

if the instructor teaches it the to the true form it shouldnt be agressive.

watch a class and see for yourself.

keep in mind that i have 20 yrs in the arts and know when i could use it the wrong way and see the timing of where in any attack and my counter i could maim/kill the guy.

Thank you Jason. I think I should consider, pray and perhaps even research it some more before I make any move. My son is just 11 so I don`t know how serious he would actually get into it. I mean in a year he may be ready to move on to something else so I`m not looking at this being a 20 year investment although in making the decision I have to consider that it could become a life time investment so I have to consider if that is the path I really want to introduce my son to or not. But right now his only interest is really just being with and playing with his friends. If it were not for his friends he would have never even brought up the subject.

 

[jasoncran]

funny, my mma coach got rid of some of his best students for fighting in a bar.
he wants nothing to do with that.

he's liable and also it gives the gym a bad rap.

 

[lamplady]

against - it's fighting ...

 

[jasoncran]

against - it's fighting ...

boxing has rules,thus a sport.

 

[pjt]

funny, my mma coach got rid of some of his best students for fighting in a bar.
he wants nothing to do with that.

he's liable and also it gives the gym a bad rap.

Good for your coach!!!! However, I don`t think he should be held liable for other people`s behavior unless a coach/teacher coaches their students to do bad behavior. Even if a fight broke out in his class, I would not see him as liable unless he did something to provoke a fight or just sat back and watched it. People must be responsible for their own behavior, but I do agree that bar room fights would definitely give his gym a bad rap. If just the fight got in the paper and not his action of throwing the men out of his gym, I`d think twice about sending my son to his gym because the association would give a really bad impression.

 

[lamplady]

boxing has rules,thus a sport.

What's the aim of the 'sport'? To make them bleed, to cause bruises, to knock someone out? - All the hallmarks of fighting, therefore it's fighting.

If it walks like a duck ...

 

[jasoncran]

What's the aim of the 'sport'? To make them bleed, to cause bruises, to knock someone out? - All the hallmarks of fighting, therefore it's fighting.

If it walks like a duck ...

one doenst die in that sport. you watch the olympics?

all the sports for olympics (in the orginal)were done to prepare the troops for war and also a competetion, the intent wasnt to kill the guy you competed agaisnt but to prove your worth.

and also the whole idea of the olympics was to stop the greek city states from fighting. they would rather settle it via those competion rather then fight it out on the battlefield

greco-roman wrestling and boxing were put together in the olympics and the rules allowed no deaths , if a person was submited and so on the fight was over.

the romans allowed the death matches.

the greeks wanted it to be more then a human cock-fight.

martial things that were once used in the battle field

judo(older empty hand use was done by samurai aka tai-jitsu)if i recall correctly
fencing
as mentioned greco-roman wrestling
boxing
shot put
javelin
discus throw.

to name a few.

 

[lamplady]

one doenst die in that sport.

How I understand fighting, the aim is not to kill intentionally either ....

 

[jasoncran]

How I understand fighting, the aim is not to kill intentionally either ....

in a street fight theres no ref for low blows. hay makers. and clinching.

even in mma there's rules,
no groin kicks/attacks.elbows from the mount to the head(straight). hits to the back of the head and spine locks

on the street all that is legal.

thats the difference.

 

[lamplady]

in a street fight theres no ref for low blows. hay makers. and clinching.

even in mma there's rules,
no groin kicks/attacks.elbows from the mount to the head(straight). hits to the back of the head and spine locks

on the street all that is legal.

thats the difference.

But the same aim remains; to attack, to bruise, to hurt, to cause bleeding, to knock someone out; all = fighting in my book ...

 

[jasoncran]

But the same aim remains; to attack, to bruise, to hurt, to cause bleeding, to knock someone out; all = fighting in my book ...

i know i wont convince you to like it. i understand that. but some find that stuff a challenge. it is. one may being winning and one simple mistake and you lose.

unlike the other sports, turn a rounds happend so much more in the mma. boxing, thai boxing, and greco-roman wrestling,judo competitions.

i do it for fun, i dont care to compete in bjj or mma.

 

[pjt]

in a street fight theres no ref for low blows. hay makers. and clinching.

even in mma there's rules,
no groin kicks/attacks.elbows from the mount to the head(straight). hits to the back of the head and spine locks

on the street all that is legal.

thats the difference.

Street fighting is dirty but boxing is just a cleaner version of street fighting. The object of both is to beat someone up. In some street fights it just a couple of punches with no desire to pull out knives or beat someone to a pulp in other street fights if someone is killed, so be it. In boxing the object is always to knock someone out if possible. That is brutal! If someone is not knocked out the object is to beat them to a bloody pulp if possible. That is brutal. To make it twice as brutal there is a referee whose job is to allow and watch over someone getting the daylights beat out of them. And to make it 3 times as brutal there are actually people paying and cheering for someone to be beat up. That is heartless, grotesque, and rather shocking. To compare boxing with Romans is very fitting since Romans have a cruel sports history. I agree with lamplady that there is just no way around it, boxing is a violent/cruel sport. The fact that it has rules can`t change that.