From: sworking@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Workinger)
Subject: Re: Crush and maim (was: How to choose...)
Keywords: Crunch, Break, Ow!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 23:45:42 GMT

In article <scq9mINN6es@agate.berkeley.edu>, upload@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Robinson) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr13.155027.17426@mcs.anl.gov> sasso@flounder.phy.anl.gov (John F. Sasso) writes:
|> >In article <sb600INN1m6@agate.berkeley.edu> I, Michael Robinson, write:
|> >>"But we could hurt people if we wanted too!" they say.

|> See what I mean?  It's obvious even to me that Judo and Aikido are completely
|> different, even though both are derived from the same arts, and both have
|> been modified to make them "safe".  The question, then, becomes:  why, how,
|> and under what circumstances.
|> 
|> Looked at from this perspective, I believe my point becomes clear.
|> 

|> >Only a few of the techniques can be made 100% harmless.  All of the
|> >throws are meant to cause severe harm.  Several of the locks can
|> >be applied in a non-damaging way, but only vs a non-martial-artist.
|> 
|> And here it is again.  Even speaking hypothetically, Aikidoka seem to lack
|> the courage of their convictions.  You'll note my (very serious) question 
|> goes unanswered.
|> 
|> If the issue is self-defense, it seems to me the only relevant question is
|> can you defend yourself.  If you can, why would you need to inflict more harm
|> than necessary in the process?  And why do Aikidoka feel compelled to point
|> out that they could if they wanted to?

Judo is not a martial art.  It is a sport.  (A great one.)  It was invented
in modern times by Dr. Kano to preserve some of the flavor of real combat
while presumably allowing its practitioners to participate without winding
up in the hospital.  (It doesn't always work out that way.)  The seriously
lethal stuff from jiu jitsu (its martial parent) was deleted.  Judo is not
adequate training for serious combat because you don't practice either 
delivering or dealing with the really lethal stuff.  Partial exception:  Most
judo teachers also have a background in the martial arts and frequently
they conduct supplementary instruction for people interested in self defense.
One really good thing about judo as preparation for combat is that it gets
you accustomed to physical contact.  Getting comfortable with physical 
contact is essential in developing combat skills.

Aikido has many of the same strengths and weaknesses vis a vis combat 
preparation; however, you are required to have a much better knowledge
of anatomy.  VERY useful.  I understand that they also provide some
rudimentary weapons training; also very useful.  (It can't compare with
traditional chinese instruction which teaches everything from the
subtlety of the fan to the crushing power of the mace.)  Although I've never 
fought an Aikidoka, word of mouth is that when pushed, they find it difficult 
to stay within the style when defending themselves against an opponent of 
roughly equivalent skill.  The philosophy as I've heard it propounded doesn't 
make a lot of sense to me for combat application.  Harmonizing with your 
opponent's movement/energy is great.  Many martial styles emphasize 
this, but the lack of aggressiveness seems to be a prescription for disaster 
unless you totally outclass your opponent.  Passivity is particularly dangerous 
when you face more than one opponent.  You've got to be able to take the fight
to them.  With opponents of equivalent skill, a less aggressive approach 
inevitably means that you're going to take more punishment before you work a 
countermove.  If you take a couple of strikes from each one, you may not be in 
any position to finish the fight.  You'll certainly be counting your bruises 
the next day.  However, as part of an overall training program which includes
several martial arts, it might serve as an excellent complement to some of
the hard striking forms such Karate or Taekwondo.







Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts